Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for revision by the tenant Sirilal Mangilal against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jaipur District. It arises out of a suit by Sugan Chand and three other landlords against the appellant for fixation of standard rent under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). The suit was decreed by the learned Munsiff, Kishangarh and standard rent at Rs. 204/-per annum was fixed. Against this decree of the learned Munsif both the parties went in appeal and one of the points taken by the tenant in the lower appellate court was that the landlord was not entitled to bring a suit for fixation of standard rent under sec. 6 of the Act when there was an agreed rent. It was submitted that the agreed rent between the parties was Rs. 240/- and therefore, the landlord could not file a suit for the fixation of standard rent. It was argued that it is only in the case of a tenant that a suit could be brought for fixation of standard rent even though there might be an agreed rent. THIS contention of the tenant was overruled by the learned District Judge and his appeal was dismissed on other grounds too. The appeal filed by the landlord was however partially allowed and the rent was raised to Rs. 300/- per year instead of Rs. 2)4/ -. It is against this judgment and decree that the tenant has come in revision to this Court.
(2.) IT was argued by Mr. D. P. Gupta on behalf of the applicant that the present suit by the landlord was under sec. 6 of the Act for fixation of standard rent and that under sec. 6 a suit for fixation of standard rent could be brought only when there was no agreed rent or when the rent agreed upon was claimed to be excessive. As in this case the rent agreed upon was not claimed to be excessive, therefore, no suit could be brought by the landlord under sec. 6 of the Act. IT was argued that even the learned District Judge has not decreed the suit treating it to one under sec. 6 of the Act, but he has gone out of his way to decide that the suit could be taken to be one under sec. 11 of the Act and treating it as such he has increased the rent. IT was urged that sec. 11 lays down a procedure for increase in rent and doss not say under what circumstances rent can be increased. IT was urged that it is under sec. 10 of the Act that conditions under which rent or standard rent is liable to increase, are given. None of the conditions given in sec. 10 are satisfied in the present case and, therefore, the landlord was not entitled to bring a suit even under sec. 11 of the Act. On behalf of the opposite party it was conceded by Mr. A. D. Bareth that a suit could not be brought under sec. 6 of the Act by the landlord under the circumstances of this case. He however, argued that the lower appellate court was perfectly justified in treating the suit to be one under sec. 11 of the Act. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel on this point. I need not go into the question whether the suit could be brought by the landlord under sec. 11 of the Act under the circumstances of the case, because the suit has not been framed as such. The plaintiff has only come under sec. 6 of the Act and has prayed for fixation of standard rent. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the landlord himself that under the circumstances of the case, the suit could not be brought by the landlord under sec. 6 of the Act. The wordings of sec. 6 show that a suit can be brought for the fixation of standard rent where no rent has been agreed upon or where for any reason the rent agreed upon is claimed to be excessive. In this case it is not the plaintiff's case that no rent was agreed upon or that the rent agreed upon was excessive. In fact the landlord could not be interested in bringing a suit claiming the rent to be excessive and it is only the tenant who is interested in bringing the suit for fixation of standard rent claiming the rent agreed upon to be excessive. To my mind the wordings of sec. 6 show that no suit for fixation of standard rent can be brought when the rent is claimed to be inadequate. The plaintiff's suit, therefore, under sec. 6 of the Act was clearly not maintainable under the circumstances of the case. As regards the arguments that the suit should be treated as one under sec. 11 of the Act. all that I wish to say is that when the plaintiff has himself framed his suit as under sec. 6 and has prayed for the fixation of standard rent and has not described his suit as one under sec. 11 and has not prayed in accordance with the terms of sec. 11, it would not be fair to give the plaintiff the benefit of sec. 11. If a suit is filed under sec. 11, different considerations might arise and the defendant might have to put up a different defence. As the suit was not framed under sec. 11, it cannot be said that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant by treating this suit to be one under sec. 11 of the Act. In this view of mine, it is not necessary for me to go into the other question. The application for revision is allowed, the decrees of the lower courts are set aside and the suit is dismissed. As the defendant appellant did not raise this point in the first court, he shall get costs only of the lower appellate court and of this Court from the opposite party. Both the parties shall bear their own costs of the first court. . ;