Dwarka Prasad. J. - (1.) A suit for fixation of standard rent was filed by the land-lord and it was claimed that the agreed rent of the disputed premises was low. The basic rent of the premises was Rs. 31/- per month while the agreed rent at the time of the institution of the suit was Rs. 40/- per month. The trial court increased the basic rent upto a maximum limit permissible, under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act) and fixed the standard rent of Rs. 77.50 per month. In the court of first appeal, it was urged on behalf of the tenants that the plaintiff has failed to show that the agreed rent was low, as such there was no question of increasing the agreed rent upto the maximum permissible under the Act. The appellate court accepted this contention and dismissed the suit. Hence this revision petition.
(2.) In this revision petition minor opposite parties Popat, Nimbudi and Mamta, son and daughters of Deceased Jankilal, who were represented by Shri Bhopal Singh, Advocate, Abu Road, are represented by Smt. Ganga Bat widow of Janki Lal and mother of the aforesaid minors. Shri Bhopal Singh has failed to appear inspite of service. He is not a fit person to remain guardian of the minor opposite parties and is, therefore, discharged, Smt. Ganga Bai, mother of the minors is appointed as guardian of minor popat, Nimburi and Manta, being the natural guardian of such minors and as she is willing to take up the defence on behalf of the minor respondents. Smt. Gangabai is represented by Mr. N.P. Gupta advocate, who has filed vekalatnama on behalf of Smt. Gangabai as self and as guardian of the minor opposite parties.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner had read before me the written statement filed by the defendants in the trial court, in which it was stated that looking to the rent of the neighbouring shops and also considering the condition of the tenants they would be prepared to pay Rs. 50/- per month as rent of the premises in dispute, Even if the plaintiff has not led any evidence on the question that the agreed rent was low, yet the defendant tenants are bound by their admissions that the agreed rent was low and the reasonable rent of the premises in dispute should be Rs. 50/- per month, which the tenant defendants were prepared to pay looking to their own economic condition and rent of the neighbouring shops. The first appellate court failed to read the written statement filed on behalf of the tenants defendants. In my view the suit should not have been dismissed. In view of the admission of the defendants contained in the written statement. The standard rent of the premises could be fixed at a sum not exceeding 21 times the basic rent, looking to the circumstances of the case. In view of the admission of the defendants-tenants, I hold that Rs. 50/- per month is reasonable amount at which the standard rent of the premises in dispute should have been fixed.;