Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was allowed to occupy certain premises on the 1st March, 1919, and the rent for the same was left to be determined later. Under the provisions of the Jaipur Rent Control Order the landlord applied on the 16th December, 1949, for fixation of rent. The first floor was occupied by two societies run by the petitioner and the second floor was occupied by the petitioner himself for his residential purposes. On behalf of the landlord, who had purchased the house on the 15th November, 1918. for Rs. 1,21,000/-, it was urged that the previous tenants had been paying Rs. 250/- P. M. in the years 1947 and 1948 after the house had been remodelled and this should be the standard rent. On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that in 1939 the premises were fetching a rent of Rs. 15/- p. m. and while some improvement may have been made the rent could not exceed Rs. 45/- p. m. for the two storeys. The Rent Controller fixed Rs. 90/-p. m. as standard rent for the first floor and Rs. 60/- p. m. for the second floor.
(2.) THE petitioner field an appeal to the court of the District Judge, Jaipur, bat this court held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it. THE appeal was then filed to the court of the District Magistrate Jaipur who, concurring with the finding of the Rent Controller, dismissed it on 31st December, 1953. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to fix the rent according to the latter part of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Jaipur Rent Control Order 1947 as he had done, because there was enough material for fixing the standard rent as per provisions of Second Schedule and in the absence whereof the latter part of sub-sec. (2) could only be made applicable. The argument, in other words, is that it was possible for the District Magistrate to fix the rent in accordance with the provisions of Second Schedule and, therefore, he could notuse his own discretion in fixing a rent after taking into consideration various circumstances enumerated in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6. The finding of the District Magistrate is that although one Parmanand had been proved to be the occupant of the premises, it had not been proved that he had been occupying the entire first and second floors of the building and therefore the evidence relating to the payment of rent by Parmanand was of no assistance in fixing the basic rent. It was contended that this finding was perverse and contrary to the statements of other witnesses. Learned counsel read the statement of Sultan Singh witness for the tenant to show that the evidence had been mired but the contention does not seem to be correct. He gave two different statements and the learned District Magistrate preferred to contradict the evidence of Parmanand by one of such statements made by Sultan Singh. This was permissible. It is in evidence that the building was remodelled by the previous owner some time after 1944. In case the premises are in the same state and the basic rent as laid down in clause (1) of Second Schedule is proved, it is very easy to fix the standard rent. But in case the building has undergone alterations and certain improvements have been made the basic rent cannot from the sole basis for the fixation of the standard rent. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in such cases the landlord can at best be entitled to 7-1/2% return on the cost of improvements under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 4. This argument is only partially correct. Sub-sec. (2) means that if the Rent Controller has fixed standard rent without taking into consideration the additions, alterations and improvements as in the case where such improvements may have been effected after the fixation of the standard rent,the landlord is entitled to an increase in rent calculated at a certain percentage of the cost. But this does not mean that the Rent Controller cannot take them into consideration while fixing the standard rent itself. Learned counsel relied on Dugah Khwaja Sahib vs. Ram Gopal Mehra (l), but that authority is for the proposition that reconstruction of the premises on old foundations would only be taken to be improvements and not as a new construction altogether. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that certain additional space in the first storey was provided by construction of a balcony. Such addition included in the term structural alterations and does not improve the case for the respondent. The finding that the basic-rent cannot be determined on the material available is one of fact and we are not satisfied that there is any apparent error or mala fides on the part of the deciding authorities. The District Magistrate, therefore, had jurisdiction to proceed to determine the rent in accordance with sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947. It is next argued that even in connection with the fixation of standard rent under sub-sec. (2) of see. 6, the District Magistrate should have tried to find the standard rents of similar building in the locality which was not done in this case. It has not been shown that there is any building in the locality similar to the one of which the rent was to be determined and, therefore, the District Magistrate cannot be held to have overlooked the provisions in this respect. A very large discretion seems to have been vested in connection with the determination of standard rent under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6, for various factors have been mentioned therein which are to be taken into consideration and the Controller has to base his decision on the commulative effect of all the factors. Under the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that the District Magistrate has not in any way exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him or had exceeded his jurisdiction. He has not committed any irregularity. There is no apparent error on the fact of the record and no mala fides on his part. This petition has no force and is dismissed with costs. . ;