MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the tenant against the order of the Civil Judge, Churu dated February 19, 1994 by which he has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Munsiff, Sardar Shahar dated October 7, 1985 fixing provisional rent @ Rs. 400/- p.m. under Section 7, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') and has fixed provisional rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 700/- per month.
(2.) THE facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. In the year 1983, the plaintiff-non-petitioners M/s. Khetsidas Sheoji Ram and its two partners (tenants) filed a suit for fixation of standard rent under Section 6 of the Act against the defendant-non-petitioners (landlords) with the averments, in short, that on May 5, 1979, the suit shop was taken on monthly rent of Rs. 700/-, it is exorbitant and excessive and the prevailing rent of the neighbouring shops ranges in between Rs. 100-150/- p.m. and praying that the standard rent be fixed @ Rs. 150/- per month. In their joint written statement, the defendants admitted that the suit shop was let out to the plaintiffs on monthly rent of Rs. 700/-. They have further averred that the suit shop is 'CHARKHANI' and the agreed rent is neither excessive nor exorbitant. By order dated November 3, the Munsiff, Sardarshahar determined the provisional rent @ Rs. 400/- per month. Appeal was filed against it, it was allowed and the case was remanded for fresh determination of provisional rent. After remand, the trial Court again determined the provisional rent @ Rs. 400/- per month by its order dated October 7, 1985. As said above, appeal filed against this order was allowed and provisional rent was determined @ Rs. 700/- per month by the appellate Court. The appellate Court observed in its order that the suit shop was taken on rent in the year 1979 after paying advance rent for four years @ 700/- per month, if this rate of rent would have been exorbitant or excessive, amount of Rs. 33,600/- would not have been paid in advance towards rent of four years, after a lapse of 15 years it cannot be said that the agreed rent is exorbitant or excessive particularly when value of rupee has considerably gone down and accordingly, fixed provisional rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 700/- per month. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prevailing rent in the year 1979 of the neighbouring shops was in between 100-150/- per month, the lower Courts should have fixed provisional rent at the maximum rate of Rs. 150/- per month, affidavits of Bhanwarlal, Kushilal, Hari Ram and Udomal were filed for proving this fact and they were not at all considered. He further contended that the learned appellate Court seriously erred to fix provisional rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 700/- per month, standard rent is always less than the agreed rent and the well settled law was ignored by it while fixing provisional rent @ Rs. 700/- per month. He lastly contended that the impugned order would greatly prejudice the case of the petitioners in the suit filed for their ejectment by the non-petitioners.
(3.) THERE is no substance in the revision petition. The first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act states that where the premises have been first let out after the 1st day of January, 1965, the standard rent shall not exceed the basic rent thereof. Explanation given in this sub-section defines "basic rent" as the rent at which the premises were let out on the first day of January, 1962 and, if not let out on that day, rent at which they were first let out after that day. It means that if the premises have been let out for the first time after 1st January, 1965, the agreed rent cannot be enhanced despite great price escalation and tremendous fall in the value of the rupee. In other words, rent of the premises first let out after 1965 has been freezed. If the premises have been let out prior to this date (1st January, 1965), enhancement is permissible to the extent of 50% in the case of residential building and 150% in the case of non-residential buildings. These provisions are highly unreasonable and are hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been observed in Ratan Arya v. State of Tamilnadu, : AIR 1986 S.C. 1444 at page 1448 para 4, as follows :- "We are entitled to take judicial notice of the enormous multifold increase of rents throughout the country, particularly in urban areas. It is common knowledge today that the accommodation which one could has possibly got for Rs. 400/- per month in 1973 will today cost at least five times more. In these days of universal day today escalation of rentals any ceiling such as that imposed by Section 30(ii) in 1973 can only be considered to be totally artificial and irrelevant today. As held by this Court in Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1983(2) RCR 579(SC) : (1984) 1 SCC 222 : AIR 1984 SC 121 at p. 130, a provision which was perfectly valid at the commencement of the Act could be challenged later on the ground of unconstitutionality and struck down on that basis. What was once a perfectly valid legislation may; in course of time, become discriminatory and liable to challenge on the ground of its being violative of Article 14. After referring to some of the earlier cases Venkataramiah J. observed : "......The garb of constitutionality which it may have possessed earlier has become worn out and its unconstitutionality is now brought out to a successful challenge." ;