J. S. VERMA, C. J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's revision against the appellate order dated August 11, 1987 passed in appeal arising out of a suit for fixation of standard rent filed under section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, by the tenant. Admittedly the agreed monthly rent was Rs. 325/ -. The suit was filed by the tenant claiming that the rent agreed was excessive and, therefore, praying for fixation of slandered rent for the premises. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appeal court has partly allowed the plaintiff's claim and fixed Rs, 215/- per month as the standard rent. Hence this revision by the landlord.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY the only evidence produced in the suit is that of the plain-tiff, tenant. The plaintiff's version is that the suit "premises which is a shop was constructed in the year 1975-76; it was first let out to a barber at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month, then to Parmanand Asandas at the rate of Rs. 215/. per-month; and thereafter to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 325/- per month. On this basis the plaintiff claimed fixation of standard rent @ Rs. 150/- per month. The case is governed by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act read with the provision and explanation thereunder. There is no dispute that as a result of these provisions the standard rent cannot exceed the basic rent since the premises was first let out after 1. 1 65; and the basic rent means the rent at which the premises were first let on or after 1. 1. 62. It is on this basis that the tenant claimed fixation of standard rent @ Rs. 150/- per month on the ground that the suit premises was first let out to a barber at that rent on its construction in 1975-76. The appeal court has not accepted this contention of the tenant and it has held that letting out the suit premises for the first time to Parmanand Asandas @ Rs. 215/- per month has been proved by the evidence led which includes a receipt issued by the landlord to the said tenant. It is on this basis that the standard rent has been fixed @ Rs. 215/- per month. The above finding of the appeal court is based on the only evidence adduced in the case and there is no reason to differ from the conclusion reached by the appeal court, the same being in consonance with the requirement of law. There is no ground for interference in this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended in the alternative that the matter be remanded for a fresh decision after giving another opportunity to the landlord. Nothing has been shown to justify such a course. The contention cannot, therefore, be accepted.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision is dismissed. No costs. .;