MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgement and decree dated 12th Oct. ,1983 passed by the Civil Judge, Ajmer in Civil First Appeal No. 146/82, arising out of the judgement and decree dated 14th Oct, 1982, passed by the Addl. Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 125/79.
(2.) THE following substantial questions of law have arisen for consideration of this Court, in this Second Appeal : 1. Whether a Government School fully run and managed by the State can be considered as " a recognised educational institution " within the meaning of Section 6 (2) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act,1955 (here in after to be referred as 'the Act')? 2. Whether " a recognised educational institution referred to in Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act refers to only privately run educational institutions which are recognised by the State for the purpose of giving grants, holding examinations and similar other purposes? 3.Whether the provisions of Section 6 (2) (b) of the Act are applicable to the Government Schools fully run and managed by the States? 4.Whether the provisions of Section 10 of the Act are enforceable over and above the increase of rent permissible under Section 6 of the said Act. ? 5.Whether the increase in rent permissible underssection 10 of the said Act is in addition to the increase in rent permissible under Section 6 of the Act? The facts, giving rise to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant filed a suit against the respondent for increasing the monthly rent of the suit premises bearing AMC No. 571/1 from Rs. 255/- to Rs. 637. 50 being 2 1/2 times of the basic rent of the suit premises, in the Court of Addl. Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer vide Civil Suit No. 125/79. The aforesaid premises were let out to the respondent by the appellant for running Government Middle School, Ram Nagar , Ajmer. First letting took place on 25th Nov. , 1963 on the monthly rent of Rs. 255/- Subsequently, some additions and alterations were made in the suit premises by the landlord and in view of this the landlord claimed increase in the monthly rent of the suit premises keeping in view the provisions of Section 6 (2) (b) of the Act on the ground that as per the instructions of the District Education Officer , Ajmer, certain additions and alterations were made in the tenanted premises and that the appellant-plaintiff had incurred a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in carrying out such additions and alterations, as per Section 10 of the Act which permits suitable increase of rent on account of any improvement of structural alterations of the premises, not being expenditure incurred on decoration, maintenance and formal repairs which is permissible under the said provision. It was contended by the appellant's counsel that such expenditure has not been taken into account in determining the standard rent of the suit premises. Section 10 of the Act permits the landlord to increase the rent by an amount which shall secure him a return of income not exceeding 7 1/2 % per annum of such expenditure. Section 6 (2) (b) of the Act provides that where the premises are let for any other purpose, the standard rent shall not exceed 2 1/2 times the basic rent thereof: Provided that where the premises have been (first) let after the first day of January ,1965, the standard rent shall not exceed the basic rent thereof: Provided further that where the fair rent or the standard rent for any premises has been determined or re-determined (by any Court under this Act) or by any authority under any law or order repealed or Section 30 (before the amendment in Raj. Premises Ordinance, 1975) and the amount of such fair rent is the same as would be determinable as standard rent by the Court under this Section, the fair rent or the standard rent previously determined or re-determined shall not be disturbed. Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section, the basic rent of any premises shall mean the rent at which the premises were let on the first day of January, 1962 and if not let on that day, the rent at which they were first let after that date. In view of the above additions and alterations carried out by the landlord in the aforesaid premises, the landlady further claimed increase of rent of Rs. 12. 50 in the monthly rent and so appellant claimed that the existing rent of Rs. 255/- should be increased to Rs. 637. 50 in view of the aforesaid provisions of Section 6 (2) (b) of the Act read with Section 10 of the Act. In the written statement filed by the respondent in the trial Court, the basic rent of the tenanted premises of Rs. 255/- was admitted but it was contended that the basic rent can only be increased by 50% under the provisions of Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act and Section 6 (2) (b) of the Act was alleged to be not applicable. In this connection it will be pertinent to mention the provisions of Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act which provides that where the premises are let for residential purposes or for any of the purposes of a public hospital, Ausdhalaya or Davakhana, a recognised educational institution, a public Library or reading room or any orphanage, the standard rent shall not exceed the basic rent increased by 50% thereof. Such increase is permissible under Section 10 of the Act which deals with the circumstances under which the standard rent is liable to increase as stated in the foregoing para above. The trial Court i. e. Additional Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer increased the monthly rent of the aforesaid premises from Rs. 255/- to Rs. 382. 50 on the ground that the provisions under Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act are applicable to the facts of the present case and no increase under Sec. 10 of the Act was allowed. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court to the District Judge, Ajmer which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Ajmer for disposal in accordance with law. Learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal of the appellant vide judgment dated 12. 10. 1983 in Civil Appeal No. 146/82 arising out of the Civil Suit No. 125/79 of Addl. Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Ajmer.
(3.) DURING the course of hearing it was contended on behalf of the appellant that first appellate court did not agree with the contentions of the appellant that there should also have been simultaneous increase of the rent which is permitted under Section 10 of the Act. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the courts below have committed error of law by not taking into consideration the difference between a purely Government school fully run and managed by the respondent and the recognised educational institutions which are partly aided by the State. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that there is a clear distinction between the Government schools wholly run and managed by the State Government and the recognised educational institutions which are partly aided by the State and the courts below have committed error of law in not distinguishing the aforesaid difference between the two educational institutions. Shri J. C. Jain,learned counsel for the appellant contended that the premises which was let out by the appellant to the respondent was falling within the second category of privately owned Government schools which was not recognised by the State and was partly aided by the State and, therefore, the provisions of Section 6 (2) (b) of the Act are applicable and not Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act. Shri N. L. Pareek, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State contended that the provisions of Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act are attracted and that the maximum increase of the monthly rent permissible under the Act is 50% of the monthly rent and the increase of rent by 2 1/2 times is not justified. ;