Nisha Gupta, J. - (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 25.5.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 16/2002 whereby the suit for fixation of standard rent has been decreed under Section 6 and Rs. 4,000/ - has been determined as standard rent.
(2.) THE short facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are that respondent plaintiff has instituted a suit under Section 6 of the Act of 1950 for fixation of standard rent. The averment in the plaint were that the tenant was paying monthly rent of Rs. 85/ -. The respondent purchased the property. The property is situated in prime place of Jaipur in Johari Bazar and it can fetch rent of Rs. 11,500/ - per month, hence suit for fixation of standard rent has been filed by the land lord. The appellant has not disputed the tenancy and it was also admitted that he was paying Rs. 85/ - per month but the contention of the appellant was that suit premises is in first floor and it is not situated in Johari Bazar but its access is through Ramjilala Ka Rasta. The property could not fetch rent of Rs. 11,500/ - and the appellant is paying fair rent. On the contentions of the parties, issues have been framed as under: The plaintiff respondent examined PW/1 Rajendra Agarwal, PW/2 R.B. Shah and relied upon documents Ex. 1 to 3. The appellant defendant has examined himself as -DW/1 and after conclusion of the trial, Rs. 4,000/ - 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 the court below has not considered the guiding factors enumerated in Section 6 sub -clause (3) and without any basis Rs. 4,000/ - 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 does 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. The further contention of the appellant is that the court below has assessed the standard rent only on surmises and conjunctures. Initially, the Court was of the opinion that 5,000/ - should be the standard rent but order has been passed for Rs. 4,000/ -. Valuation report has wrongly been relied upon, in valuation report, the size of the premises has been written wrongly, hence whole basis of the report is faulty. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that the court below has considered the rival contentions of the parties and after considering the location, use and size of the property, the standard rent has rightly been assessed, valuation report is not the basis of the order but guidelines have been taken from the valuation report which is permitted under the law, no strict arithmetic formulae can be evolved under Section 6 sub -clause (3) of the Act, map of the property is attached to the valuation report which is not in dispute. 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.;