Wanchoo C. J. - (1.) THIS is a revision by Gurbuxrai and has arisen in the following circumstances.
(2.) GURBUXRAI filed a suit under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII) of 1950 (hereinafter called the Act ). His case was that he had taken a plot of land along with a room from Amansingh and another on rent for Rs. 1800/-per year. He wanted to use the plot and the room for commercial purposes. He said that this rent was excessive, and prayed that the court might fix standard rent which, according to him, worked out at Rs. 25/- per month according to sec. 6 (2) (b) of the Act. The suit was resisted by the defendant, and his case was that the premises were let out, for the first time, to the plaintiff in 1948, and therefore, the rent, which was fixed, namely Rs. 1800/- per year could not be reduced in view of the proviso to sec. 6 (2) (6 ). Three issues were framed by the trial court. The first two issues related to the basic rent, and to the question whether the premises were leased out for the first time, in 1948. The third issue related to the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to get the agreed rent reduced, and if so what should be the standard rent. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the premises in question were let out, for the first time, in 1948. Therefore, they held that the agreed rent was the basic rent, and could not be reduced in view of the proviso to sec. 6 (2) (b ). The third issue, which related to the question of what should be the standard rent, was, therefore, very summarily dealt with by both the courts. Learned counsel for the applicant urges that the finding of the courts below that the premises in question were let out, for the first time, in 1948, is not correct as they were let out sometime after 1942 to one Sohanlal at Rs. 10/- per month. There is no doubt that the kothari or room in this compound was let out to Sohanlal sometimes after 1942 at Rs. 10/-per month; but the main question is whether the entire compound was also let out to Sohanlal at Rs. l0/-per month when the kothari was let out. Sohanlal's own statement in this connection was that he was a tenant of one kothari. and paid Rs. 10/- per month. He said nothing about the compound. Other witnesses did say that Sohanlal was using the compound also. But the question is not of Sohanlal's use of compound, because he would use it to a certain extent for going in and coming out of the kothri. The point is whether Sohanlal was given the entire premises, namely the kothri and the compound on rent at Rs. 10/-per month Sohanlal's own statement as I have said is that he took the kothri at Rs. 10/-per month. Considering that he was a labourer working for the defendant, it is hardly likely that he would be given all this land along with the kothri in what is known as the industrial area of Ganganagar at Rs. 10/-per month. In these circumstances, I see no reason to disagree with the courts below that premises, namely the kothri along with the land, were let out, for the first time, to the plaintiffs,and that what was let to Sohanlal was only the kothari on Rs. 10/- per month without the compound. But the courts below were in my Opinion, wrong in coming to the conclusion that because these premises, namely the kothari and the compound, were let out to the plaintiff for the first time, in 1948, the rent agreed at that time could not be reduced. Sec. 6 (1) provides that where no rent has been agreed upon, or where for any reason the rent agreed upon is claimed to be excessive, the tenant may institute a suit for fixation of standard rent. Thus it is open to the tenant to institute a suit for reduction of the agreed rent on the ground that it is excessive. Sec. 6 (2) provides the manner in which the court would proceed to fix the standard rent. The court has first to find out the basic rent, if any, and if the basic rent can be found out, sub-sec. (2) provides how far it can be raised in fixing the standard rent. Sub-sec. (3) provides that if the standard rent cannot be fixed on the principles provided in sub-sec. (2), it should be determined in the manner provided in sub-sec. (3 ). The courts below seem to have thought that the first proviso to sub-sec. (2) (b) precludes them from determining the standard rent according to sub-sec. (3) where there is an agreed rent arrived at after the 1st of January, 1946. The proviso, on which reliance is placed, is as follows - "provided that where the premises have been let after the first day of January, 1946, the standard rent shall not exceed the basic rent thereof. " The argument on behalf of the opposite parties is that under this proviso the rent agreed upon, in ease premises are let out, for the first time, after January, 1946, is the basic rent and the standard rent to be fixed by the court must be the basic rent. I am of the view that this is not the correct interpretation of this proviso. The proviso does not say that in such a case the standard rent shall be equal to the basic rent. It only says that the standard rent shall not exceed the basic rent. It does fix a maximum but does not fix a minimum. In these circumstances, the power of the court to reduce the rent agreed upon in case it is found to be excessive is still there, and the court can proceed under sub-sec. (3 ). The utility of this proviso will be clear from a simple instance. Sec. 6 (1) also provides that a landlord may sue for fixation of standard rent where a tenant is admitted without rent being agreed upon. Suppose, therefore, that a landlord has let in a tenant without rent being agreed upon, and he sues him claiming for example Rs. 50/- p. m. as the standard rent The tenant, if he can show that the premises were let, for the first time, after January, 1946, says for Rs. 30/- per month, can insist that the court should not fix more than Rs. 30/- per month as the standard rent on the landloard's suit even though the landlord might be claiming Rs. 50/- per month. But the proviso, in my opinion, does not say that if it is the tenant who is suing for fixation of standard rent, the standard rent cannot be less than the basic rent. The courts below, therefore, did not deal with the third issue properly when they decided it summarily without going into the evidence produced by the parties carefully. In these circumstances, the revision must be allowed. I, therefore, allow this revision set aside the order of the courts below and send the case back to the Civil, Judge, Ganganagar for determination of the standard rent under sec. 6, sub-sec. (3 ). Parties will not be allowed to lead any further evidence. The costs of this revision and of the two courts below will depend upon the final result of the suit. .;