J.K.RANKA,J. - (1.) INSTANT revision petition is preferred against the concurrent finding of two courts below whereby provisional rent u/s 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 has been fixed @ Rs.25,000/ - per month.
(2.) BRIEF facts, which can be noticed are that the respondent is owner of a property in Ganj, Ajmer where the State of Rajasthan is running a Government School, namely; Government Subhash Secondary School, Outside Delhi Gate, Ajmer.
(3.) IT is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the property stood let out since 1962 and by a mutual consent, the rent was fixed at Rs.412/ - per month in the year 1986. The trial court, without appreciating the evidence and material on record, fixed provisional rent at Rs.25,000/ - per month which is abnormal, unheard and without any evidence. The trial court has considered valuation report of an independent valuer who had not based the valuation on the present facts and circumstances and valued the property abnormally high and therefore, reliance could not have been placed on such an independent valuation report by a private valuer. It is further contended that the first floor of the property where the school is being run was constructed by the tenant (State Government) at their own expenditures after seeking permission of the respondent -landlord. Therefore, the value of the amount incurred by the State Government ought to have been deducted by the trial court while considering the provisional rent or fair value of the tenanted property. He relied upon judgment rendered in the case of Lalchand Vs. Rameshwarlal, 2003 2 WLC(Raj) 170. Per -contra, ld. counsel for the respondents contended that both the courts below have passed a well reasoned order by appropriately appreciating the material available on record and no interference is warranted under the revisional jurisdiction against the concurrent finding of facts. He further contended that the valuation report is by a Government approved valuer who is a technical person and highly qualified to value the properties. He further contended that though as per the valuation the provisional rent could have been Rs.27,200/ - as per the working by the trial court but the trial court has even ignored the same and restricted it to Rs.25,000/ - per month as a provisional rent which though is lower but needs no interference. He further contended that no evidence was led by the petitioner about incurring of any expenditure on the first floor or other portion and therefore, the trial court as well as lower appellate court have rightly rejected such a claim of the petitioners. He relied upon judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and anr. Vs. Santosh Bala Mittal (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.440/2002) and Ram Das Vs. Vishnu Das (SB Civil Revision Petition No.1908/1999.;