- (1.) 5
(2.) THIS is a revision petition under section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as "the Act") against the judgment and decree dated 14. 11. 1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota in Civil Regular Appeal No. 48/83 reversing the judgment and decree dated 4. 2. 1982 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Kota in civil suit No. 5/77 (234/80 ). Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the plaintiff-petitioners instituted a suit under section 6 of the Act in the trial court against the non-petitioner on 17. 1. 1977 for increasing the rent of the premises let out to the non-petitioner at the rate of Rs. 400/- p. m. as rent. It was pleaded by the petitioners in the plaint that the rent was low and since the shop under suit was let out to the non-petitioner on 1. 6. 1964, hence it was contended that rent be increased from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 1000/- p. m. The non-petitioner filed written statement and pleaded that the shop was let out in the month of February, 1965 and as such the suit was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that there was contract between the parties, according to which the petitioners were not entitled to increase the rent for a period of 20 years. Following issues were framed by the trial court in the suit : (1) Whether the disputed shop was let out to the defendant in the month of February, 1965 and as such the suit was not maintainable? (2) Whether the suit was pre-mature according to the facts pleaded in para No. 5 of the written statement? (3) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to determine the rent at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month according to section 6 of the Act? (4) Whether the defendant was entitled to get Rs. 1500/- as special cost from the plaintiffs. (5) Relief ? Both the parties led evidence and after hearing arguments the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by its judgement dated 4. 2. 1982 and the standard rent of the shop under suit was determined at Rs. 800/- per month from 1. 2. 1977. An appeal was preferred by the non-petitioner, which was accepted by the first appellate court and the judgement and decree of the trial court was reversed, but its judgement and decree dated 14. 11. 1983. I have heard Shri S. M. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R. P. Agrawal learned counsel appearing for the non petitioner and have also gone through the judgments of both the court, evidence and other documents on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first appellate court has misread the evidence and has also mis directed itself while reversing the judgment of the trial court. It is contended that the conclusion of the first appellate court that there is no pleading of the petitioners or specific finding of the trial court that the rent was low and therefore, the rent could not be increased under the provisions of sec. 6 of the Act, is against the evidence on record. It is further contended that the first appellate court has mis-directed itself by taking the view that the provisions regarding increase of rent are contained in sections 10 and 11 of the Act. It is pointed out that section 10 deals with the circumstances in which the standard rent is liable to be increased and section 11 of the Act provides for procedure for increase in the rent. This suit was filed under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act for fixing the standard rent and therefore, section 10 was evidently not applicable to the facts of the present case as no prayer had been made for increase of any standard rent that might have been earlier fixed by any court regarding the premises under suit. It is further pointed out that in para 20 of the judgment of the first appellate court, it has been wrongly mentioned that the petitioners have accepted that Rs. 400/- rent per month, was adequate. Nowhere in his statement Narain Lal plaintiff (PW 1) has so stated. This clearly amounts to mis-reading of evidence by the learned first appellate court. It is also pointed out that the ratio of the authority of Jagdish Prasad vs. Kapoor Chand (l) was not applicable in this case as the learned trial court while deciding issue No. 3 gave specific finding that agreed rent of Rs. 400/- was too low but the learned appellate court inspite of that, illegally set aside the finding of the trial court. It is contended that P. W. 1 plaintiff Narain Lal had clearly stated in the evidence that the rent of the premises was less and that the rent has increased and had also given specific instances to prove the same and, therefore, there was nothing in the evidence to show that the plaintiff-petitioners were not entitled to get the standard rent of the shop fixed at Rs. 800/- per month as decided by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has supported the judgement under revision and has urged that there was no clear finding of the trial court holding that the rent was low and in absence of the same, the trial court erred in increasing the rent from Rs. 400/- to 800/- per month as standard rent. It is, therefore, contended that no case has been made out by the petitioner for interference with the judgment under revision.
(3.) THERE is no dispute between the parties that the shop was let out to the non-petitioner on 1. 6. 1974 at the rent of Rs. 400/- per month. The only issue to be considered in this appeal as urged by both the parties is issue No. 3 regarding fixation of standard rent to Rs. 1000/- as prayed by the plaintiffs/petitioners. Learned first appellate court in para 9 of the judgment has stated that since the premises were given on rent to the non- petitioner on 1. 6. 1964, it cannot be said that as on 1. 1. 1965 the rent of the premises under suit was less considering the rate of rent prevail ant on 1. 1. 1965. THEREfore, the petitioners were not entitled to get the standard rent determined in their suit. It has been further stated in the impugned judgment that the trial court while discussing the issue has stated that it is evident that the rents have increased in Kota since 1964 and therefore the petitioner is entitled to get the standard rent fixed under the provisions of section 6 of the Act. In para 14 of the impugned judgment, it has been mentioned that under sections 10 and 11 the provisions regarding increase of rent have been enumerated. It is further stated that if the petitioners want any increase in the rent then the petitioners shall have to prove their case in accordance with the provisions of sections 10 and 11 of the Act. Learned appellate court has opined that if any premises in the area where the suit premises is situated, was given on rent for the first time in January 1965, there could be no increase and that rent would be treated as the standard rent of such premises. On this assumption, learned first appellate court has then proceeded to consider what was the increase in the rent between 1. 6. 1964 the date on which the suit premises were given on rent to January, 1965 to show as to what extent the rent for the suit premises was low. It has been further stated in the impugned judgment that according to PW 1 himself the rent of shop in occupation of Jiyaji Shooting was increased from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 350/- p. m. shows that there was no need to fix any standard rent than the rent of Rs. 400/- p. m. for the shop in suit. Then the learned first appellate court has stated that if the shop in suit had been given on rent on 1. 01. 1965, in that case Rs. 400/- p. m. would have been the standard rent for the same and the plaintiff-petitioners have failed to prove that the rent agreed upon only six months earlier than January, 1965 was very low as if the premises in suit had been let out on rent on 1. 1. 1965, the standard rent would have been Rs. 400/- only. It is evident that the learned first appellate court has mis conceived the position of law and also misread the evidence. The provisions of section 10 are applicable only to such cases, in which a prayer for increase has been made for the premises for which the standard rent had already been fixed by a court and still the land lord wants to get the rent increased on account of reasons mentioned in the section itself like, improvement of structural alteration of the premises etc. This suit was filed under the provisions of section 6 for fixation of standard rent and not for increase in the standard rent, which had been already fixed by any court. Admittedly, the suit premises were given on rent on 1. 6. 1964 and therefore, the provisions of section 6 become applicable to such a matter if the landlord is able to prove that the rent for the shop is low. In that case, the law provides that the standard rent can be fixed at a rate which shall not exceed 2 ½ times of the basis rent. In this case, the basis rent is Rs. 400/- per month as the shop was given on rent for the first time on 1. 6. 1964, which was earlier than 1. 1. 65. It is also provided in proviso to sub-seb. (b) of section 6 of the Act that if the premises are given on rent for the first time after the first day of January, 1965 the standard rent shall not exceed the basic rent thereof. This clearly means that the basic rent shall the treated to be the standard rent of the such premises. It is not provided in this section that the court should see what would have bene increased from the date on which the premises were given on rent to 1. 1,1965. Therefore, the learned first appellate court mis directed itself to consider that since the | premises under suit were given on rent only six months earlier 1. 1. 65 therefore, it the premises were given on rent on 1. 165 the standard rent would have been the same i. e. Rs. 400/- per month as there was no substantial increase | form 1. 164 the day on which the suit premises were given on rent to 1. 11965 the crucial date after which the basic rent in considered to be also the standard rent of the premises. The suit has been filed in the year 1977 and the premises were given on rent in June, 1964 and therefore, the contention of the plaintiff-petitioners have clearly mentioned that the rent of the suit premises is low and therefore, it should be increased PW/1 Narain Lal plaintiff has clearly stated in his statement that he is entitled to get the standard rent of the suit premises fixed at Rs. 1000/- under the provisions of Sec. 6 of the Act. He has also stated that he has given out on rent another shop which is a similar to shop in Rampura Bazar and is fetching Rs. 1500/- per month. He has also stated that these days the rents have gone high and the rents jeep on constantly increasing. He has further stated that since 1970 the rate of rents in 1979 has increased 3 fold in Rampura Bazar. He has given example of several shops including Bata Company, the rent of which was Rs. 105/-, but has been increased to Rs. 250/ -. The rent of the shop of Jiyaji Shooting has been increased from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 350/- per month. The rent of shop opposite to the shop in suit occupied by Vijay Book Stores was increased in 1975 from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 250/- per month. Similarly, he has given several other instances, which are not necessary to enumerate here and suffice it to say that the petitioners have given specific instances in his statement to prove his contention that the rents in the ara have increased many fold and therefore, the rent of the shop in suit should be increased. There is no magic in the world 'low' and it is not necessary that a particular world should be used by a person who comes to give evidence, who evidently is not conversant with the previsions of law. What is required is that his statement should show that it is asserted that the rent for the suit premises was low and, therefore, should be increased as per the provisions of section 6 of the Act while fixing the standard rent of the shop. Dw/1 Ved Prakash has denied that there has been any increase in the rent in the area, but has admitted in his cross examination that the rent of the shop in shoping centre was Rs. 300/- in 1963 and has been raised to Rs. 500/- in 1979. He has also admitted that the rents have been increased in the city of Kota as the population has also been growing. Even Dw/2 Sakir Husain, Dw/3 Abbas Husain and Dw/4 Habibulla Khan who are employees of the defendant have admitted that the rents in the area have increased. ;