GARG, J. - (1.) THIS civil misc. appeal under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950) has been filed by the defendant-tenant (appellant) against the order dtd. 5. 4. 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur by which in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Act of 1950 for determination of standard rent, the learned Additional Dist. Judge determined the provisional rent of the suit premises @ Rs. 3,000/- per month in place of Rs. 200/- per month.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: i) That the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of the Act of 1950 for determination of the standard rent of the house No. 786, situated at Chopasani Road, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the house in question) alleging inter alia that in the lower storey of that house in question, the appellant-plaintiff for last more than 40 years. IT was further stated that the rented premises were purchased by the husband of the respondent and prior to that the defendant-appellant was tenant in that premises and area of the disputed residential accommodation is near about 1000 sq. ft. IT was further stated that initially the rented premises were taken on rent by the defendant-appellant in the year 1953 and monthly rent was Rs. 27/- and during the course of arguments, it has further been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that since 1960 the rent was being paid @ Rs. 200/- per month, but since now valuation of the property has increased substantially and as per the valuation report, the prevailing market value of the rented premises is near about Rs. 16,00,000/- and if the rent is assessed on the basis of prevailing rate, it would come near about Rs. 12735/- per month and therefore the standard rent of the rented premises be determined and in that suit, a prayer was also made that provisional rent under Section 7 of the Act of 1950 be also determined. ii) After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Dist. Judge vide order dtd. 5. 4. 2004 determined the provisional rent as Rs. 3000/- per month in place of Rs. 200/- per month after taking into consideration the valuation report as well as other facts of the case. iv) Aggrieved from the order dtd. 5. 4. 2004, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. In this appeal, the main case of the appellant-defendant is that the provisional rent has been determined arbitrarily by the learned Additional Dist. Judge as the same has been increased from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 3000/- per month and therefore, the impugned order dtd. 5. 4. 2004 requires modification and this appeal deserves to be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and it has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that since it is a discretionary order and has been passed after giving cogent reasons, therefore, the same does not require any interference and hence the present appeal be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. Before proceeding further, the concepts of standard rent and provisional rent and the scope of Secs. 6, 7 & 13 (3) (4) (5) of the Rent Control Act have to be kept in mind.
(3.) THE term `standard rent' has been defined in Sec. 3 (vi) of the Rent Control Act, which is reproduced here for ready reference:- " (vi) "standard rent" used in relation to any premises, means the rent therefore determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act. " In the second proviso to sub-sec. (2) the term "fair rent" has been used along with standard rent in alternative. The standard rent is also called "fair rent" in other Acts. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that Sec. 6 (2) of the Rent Control Act, which deals with determination of standard rent, has been declared unconstitutional by this Court in Sohan Lal vs. Badri Narain & Ors. (1), and this aspect was also kept in mind by both the Courts below while fixing the provisional rent u/s. 7 (1) of the Rent Control Act, but the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2 while determining the provisional rent also kept in mind the provisions of Sec. 6 (3) of the Rent Control Act. ;