- (1.) This appeal has been filed under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter Rs. 1950 Act') against the order dated 12-12-2012 in Civil Suit No.635/2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur determining provisional rent under Section 7 of the 1950 Act in respect of a tenanted shop at Rs.20,000/- per month.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff-landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord') instituted a suit against the appellants-defendant-tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant') under Section 6 of the 1950 Act for determination of standard rent. It was stated that the tenanted shop admeasuring 333 sq. ft. was situated in one of the premier commercial areas i.e. Johari Bazar Jaipur but was fetching only a rent of Rs.230/- per month. It was averred in the plaint that with the passage of time, the rent in the area in respect of similarly sized and situated shops was at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. ft. consequent to which the standard rent of the tenanted shop admeasuring 333 sq. ft. should at least be Rs.33330/- per month. It was also prayed that provisional rent with reference to Section 7 of the 1950 Act be determined and paid during the pendency of the suit for determination of standard rent.
(3.) On service of notice of the suit the tenants filed a written statement denying the measurement of the shop, stating that it was not of 333 sq. ft. It was also denied that the prevalent rent of the tenanted shops was @ Rs.100/- per sq. ft. or that standard rent was liable to be fixed at Rs.33330/- per month as prayed. It was submitted that the shop was an old construction and in fact in the year 2000 standard rent of the shop in issue had been fixed at Rs.137/- per month, under a consent decree dated 4-4-2000, and thereafter no enhancement of rent or the value of the shop could be envisaged within a short period of about three years since 2000. It was submitted that the landlord had not undertaken new development in respect of suit shop, consequent to which no demand for re-determination of standard rent as prayed under Section 6 of the 1950 Act could be made. It was submitted that in fact during the tenancy, the State Government had got vacated verandahs in front of the tenanted shop which were earlier included in the tenancy, resulting in lesser area under the tenancy of the shop with the tenant owing to which the rent was liable to be reduced being excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. Examples of shops in the vicinity of the tenanted shop were set out stating that in no case the standard rent of the tenanted shop be fixed over Rs.600/- per month as such was the rent of similar shops in the area. It was stated that the suit for determination of standard rent under section 6 of the 1950 Act as also the application for payment of provisional rent under section 7 of the 1950 Act be dismissed.;