JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THESE three revision applications can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment. *
(2.) THEY arise out of a suit for enhancement of rent filed by the landlords against the tenants under sec. 11 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 on the following grounds : - (1) that since 1st January, 1943 there has been an enormous rise in the cost of commodities and articles meant for daily use and the rise in prices has been more than two and a half times the prices as prevailing on 1st January, 1943; (2) that likewise there has been an enormous increase in the demands of persons looking after the property, recovering the rent and maintaining accounts and the cost of maintenance has also gone very high; (3) that taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the general increase and the rise in the rate of rent prevalent the rent which was agreed for shops in suit is meagre, inadequate and calls for increase to the extent of atleast two and a half times the rent which the shops fetched on 1st January, 1943. In all the three cases the tenants have been in possession of the same shops since before 1st January, '43. These shops are small ones and are situated in Naya Bazar, Ajmer. All the three tenants are gold-smiths. The suits were resisted by the tenants. The plaintiffs produced evidence to prove that there has been a general rise in prices since 1st January, 1943, that prices have risen to more than 250%, that the cost of maintenance has gone up to about four times and that salary of rent collector has increased from Rs. 30/- to Rs. 100/ -. No evidence was produced on behalf of the landlords to prove that there was any rise in the rate of rent of shops in the locality in which the shops in suit are situated. The tenants produced evidence to show that the increase in prices was only upto one and a quarter or one and a half times the prices prevailing on 1st Jan. , 1943, and that considering the prevailing rents in the locality the rents of the shops in suit are not low. They also produced evidence to show that on account of the enactment of Gold Control Order the business of the tenants had gone down considerably. They also gave evidence that the rent of one shop in each case in the neighbourhood was lower than the rent of the shop in suit. The trial court made a local inspection and got the size of the shops in suit measured. The neighbouring shops about which evidence was produced by the defendants were not inspected. No finding was recorded by the trial court as to whether or not the rents of these neighbouring shops were as alleged in the evidence produced on behalf of the defendants. The suits for enhancement of rent were dismissed on the ground that the size of the shops in suit was small and that the business of goldsmiths who were tenants was not flourishing. On appeal the appellate court enhanced the rent to two and a half times the basic rent as on 1st January, 1943 solely on the ground that there was a general increase in prices since 1st January, 1943 to the extent of more than two and a half times. The contention on behalf of the defendants is that the appellate court committed material irregularity in not applying its mind to the relevant consideration and deciding the cases without considering the entire evidence on record. The revision applications have been contested on behalf of the landlords on the ground that sec. 11 (3) authorises a landlord to bring a suit for enhancement of rent and that sec. 6 (2) (b) authorises the court to increase the rent to two and a half times the basic rent in case of premises let out for other than residential purposes and the court is entitled to raise the rent two and a half times in every case. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the rent cannot be enhanced to two and a half times the basic rent in every case merely on the ground that the landlord desires such an increase. In Sambhu Ram and others vs. Kanhiya Lal and others (l) it was held that a landlord can ask and sue for increase in agreed rent even in circumstances not covered by sec. 10. The limit of increase will be governed by sec. 6 and the extent of increase will be governed by consideration mentioned in sub-sec. 3 of that section. On behalf of the landlord it was contended that sub-sec. 3 of sec. 6 is only applicable where the basic rent on 1st January 1943 cannot be determined. Reliance was placed on some observations made in Gopichand vs. Dhannalal (2 ). The question which arose for determination in that case was whether in case of premises first let out on or after 1st January, 1946 the standard rent could be fixed lower than the basic rent. It was in that connection that the above observation was made, The decision was based on the reasoning that the basic rent is the rock-bottom rent of the premises and the standard rent could not be lower than the basic rent. In my opinion rent can only be enhanced on the basis of considerations mentioned in the Act. Some of these considerations are contained in Sec. 10. In a case of enhancement of rent under sec. 11 (3) where sec. 10 is not applicable the court shall determine such rent having due regard to the pre-war rent, the prevailing or standard rent for similar premises in the same locality the various amenities (such as electricity, water connections, sanitary fittings, or light) attached to the premises, the cost of construction, maintenance or repairs thereof, the special reasons, it any, proved by the plaintiffs or other relevant considerations. In the pre-sent cases there is evidence record to show what was the rent on 1st January, 1943, what was the agreed rent on the date of the suits, what was the prevailing rent of some other premises in the same locality, what was the rise in the cost of collection of rent as well as the general rise in prices. Rent under sec. 11 (3) has to be determined on consideration of the entire evidence on record. The appellate court committed a material irregularity in determining the rent merely on the basis of the general rise in prices ignoring the other relevant considerations altogether. I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the order of the appellate court enhancing the rent and remand the cases for rehearing the appeals and re-decide them in the light of the observations made above. The costs of these revision applications shall abide the final result of the suit. . ;