- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act of 1950) has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2007 passed by Addition District Judge, (Fast Track) No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 2/2007 whereby the suit for fixation of standard rent has been decreed under Section 6 and Rs. 15,000/ - has been determined as standard rent.
(2.) THE short facts of the case leading to this appeal are that respondent plaintiff has instituted a suit under Section 6 of the Act of 1950 for fixation of standard rent for the premises let out to the defendant - appellant originally at the monthly rent of Rs. 75/ - and from 1.2.1976 the monthly rent was enhanced to Rs. 142/ - and the last rent paid was 150.88 per month. The respondent has purchased the property and attorned the tenant. The main contention of the respondent in the suit was that the property is commercial situated in prime business locality of Jaipur City at Johari Bazar. The market price of the land in that area is approximately 1 lac per Sq. Meter and it can fetch Rs. 25,000/ - per month rent. The appellant has denied the contentions and submitted that agreed rent is reasonable. On the contentions of the parties, issues have been framed as under: 1. 25 ? .... 2. , ? ... 3. 25,000/ - ?.... 4. ?... The plaintiff respondent examined PW/1 Rajendra Agarwal, PW/2 R.B. Shah and appellant defendant has examined himself as -DW/1, Shanker Lal -DW/2, Bhagwan Sahai -DW/3, Mohan Lal - DW/4 and Ram Chand -DW/5. Under Section 7 of the Act of 1950, the Court has determined 662/ - per month as provisional rent and after conclusion of the trial, Rs. 15,000/ - has been determined as standard rent, hence this appeal. The contention of the appellant is that under Section 6 sub -clause (3) of the Act of 1950, the court below has not considered the prevailing rent of the same locality, nothing has been placed on record by the respondent that what is the prevailing rent of adjacent properties. Specific mention has been made as regards the other property adjacent to the disputed property that Ratnalay Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai is the tenant of adjacent property but no documentary evidence has been produced, hence an adverse inference be drawn against the respondent under Section 7 of the Act of 1950 Rs. 662/ - has been assessed as provisional standard rent, the court below has not considered the guiding factors enumerated in Section 6 sub -clause (3) and without any basis Rs. 15,000/ - has been fixed as standard rent arbitrarily. His further contention is that now new Act of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short the New Act, 2001) has came into force on 1.4.2003 and as per Section 6 of the New Act, 2001 the standard rent should be determined as there is significant disparities between the calculation of rent under Section 6 of New Act, 2001 and Section 6(3) of the Act of 1950 and the law dos not provide for such anomalies. The court below has also erred in ordering the standard rent from the date of suit without assigning any reason, the appellant is paying regularly the rent determined under Section 7 of the Act of 1950. Section 6(3) of Act of 1950 does not recognize the market value of the property but only the cost of construction is the relevant consideration to assess the standard rent but the court below has wrongly assessed the standard rent on the basis of market value. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that all the relevant considerations under Section 6(3) of the Act of 1950 have been proved by the respondent. The appellant himself has admitted that in the locality Rs. 30 to 40,000/ - rent is normal rent, the market value of the property is also a relevant consideration under Section 6(3) of the Act of 1950, valuation report gives basis and guideline to arrive at a fair rent. The court below has not assessed any magic figure but on the consideration of the evidence standard rent has been rightly determined. The conscious reading of the order goes to show that the respondent is claiming standard rent from the date of suit, he is not getting adequate and reasonable amount, hence the court below was right in making the order effective from the date of filing of the suit and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and decree under appeal as well as the original record of the case.;