PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE suit was instituted by plaintiff for ejectment, mense profits and fixing of standard rent. THE appellant has challenged the fixation of provisional rent, which is claimed to be on the higher side. According to the learned counsel, in 1970 the premises was let out at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. THE learned counsel submits that the premises which was let out for Rs. 125/- in 1970 its rent has been enhanced to Rs. 2,000/ -. According to the learned counsel, this increase is disproportionate. THE learned counsel has further submitted that increase of Rs. 2000/- is only for the period starting from January, 2004. Prior to this the rent has been enhanced from Rs. 125/- to Rs. 300/ -. That too again is in the higher side. THE rent has been fixed in many multiplies of the original rent. Provisional rent is to be fixed in terms of Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' ). It has been urged that while deciding the question of fixation of provisional rent the trial court has taken into consideration such parameters which could not have been looked into. The determination is, therefore, not justified. The learned counsel for the respondent, controverting the allegations of the appellant, submitted that it is not correct to say that the rent fixed is not within the Scheme, provided by the Act. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as and when a court is to consider fixation of provisional rent, under the Scheme of the Act of 1950, it has to do so in summary manner. While doing so it can look into the Scheme of the Act as provided in Section 6 (3) of the Act. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Act the Court is to hold summary enquiry. It is for holding such enquiry, broader view of the provision in Section 6 (3) of the Act is taken into consideration though it cannot be said to be out of place for that. Expression standard rent in Section 6 (3) of the Act can be construed to be provisional rent. The whole exercise, therefore, can be taken in that light. In terms of these provisions, the Court has to see that standard rent (read provisional) of any premise if not possible to be determined in view of the provisions of Section 6 (2), Section 6 (3) of the Act is to be resorted to. Thus, the standard (rent provisional) rent has to be fixed in terms of Section 6 (3) of the Act of 1950. Now, that provision of Section 6 (2) of the Act has been struck down by this Court in Khem Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and Another 1999 (2) WLC (Raj.) 228 = RLW 1999 (2) Raj. 908, the court has to look into the scheme of Section 6 (3) In the scheme of Section 6 (3) the court has to take into consideration the following factors- (1) having due regard to the prevailing rent or standard rent for similar premises in the same locality the various amenities (such as electricity, water connection, sanitary fittings and the like) attached to the premises, (2) the cost of construction, maintenance and repairs thereof. (3) the special reason, if any, proved by the plaintiff and (4) other relevant considerations. The learned counsel emphasised that as and when the courts consider the question of fixation of standard (read provisional) rent under the Act of 1950 it has to consider the four factors enumerated herein above as delineated in sub-section (3) of Section 6. In the instant case in 1970 the rent was Rs. 125/ -. In 1970 the gold prices were less than Rs. 100/- per tola. In 2004, when the order impugned was passed, the gold prices were escalating in between Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 7,000/ -. This is almost 60 to 70 times of the price of gold in 1970. If the escalation of price is computed in terms of gold, the standard rent fixed by the trial court is below the level of inflation which has occurred in the price of gold. This can be one of the considerations, as delineated in sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act of 1950. In the instant case the trial court has noticed that other considerations being consideration Nos. 1, 2 and 3, regarding these facts no evidence was produced by the plaintiff. In that background the trial court has taken into consideration the factor of price rise to commodities in eight years. The price index almost gets doubled in eight years. Taking 32 years to be the total period, the trial court has come to the conclusion that Rs. 2,000/- should be the rent. The trial court has considered one of the factors which is a relevant consideration in fixing the standard rent, i. e. escalation of the price in index. This Court in Khem Chand's case (supra), has taken into consideration the various factors, including the price index, to be a relevant consideration for enhancing the rent and, therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent justified the judgment claiming that the rent which was Rs. 125/- in 1970, if is enhanced to Rs. 2,000/-, this would only mean a compensatory enhancement because the property prices have gone much high. Whatever land was available for few thousand rupees is now available in lacs of rupees. Thus, the property price have seen an upsurge which is phenomenal. The prices have gone by lacs and in that background if Rs. 2,000/- is considered to be the standard rent, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, is on the lesser side and that being the position, the learned counsel has emphasised that the case is one which is liable to be rejected and the findings of the trial court deserves to be approved.
(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration and have perused the record. As and when a summary enquiry is to be held in the matter for fixing provisional rent it has to be guided by some legal principles. Section 7 of the Act speaks of summary enquiry. This enquiry is to be held in relation to a suit instituted for fixing standard rent under Section 6 of the Act. The ultimate out come of the suit will have to be in consonance with Section 6 of the Act. For that, detailed enquiry will have to be under taken as required in the suit. When the jurisdiction is exercised in relation to fixation of provisional rent under Section 7 of the Act it can keep broader limits in mind as delineated in Section 6 of the Act. That would keep the provisional rent in the line of the standard rent which will be fixed ultimately. This would thus be a proposition which will be one, faced by the parties ultimately. At the time when the trial court exercises jurisdiction under section 7 of the Act, it will generally have less material before it. Major evidence will only come at the trial. A summary enquiry is required to be undertaken. A correct note can be struck only if objective appreciation is made of the circumstances. A pragmatic view will be required to be taken keeping in view rational thoughts. A landlord cannot be permitted to get more than what he can chew. Similarly a tenant cannot be made to ridicule the landlord by not offering a reasonable rent. ;