MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THESE appeals have been filed under Section 22, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act') against the order of the District Judge, Pali dated December 18, 1987, determining the provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 341/- under sec. 7 of the Act w. e. f- March 30, 1987 and determening the amount of rent at the rate of Rs. 481/- for sixty seven months and at the rate of Rs. 341/-for eight month and interest total Rs. 40494. 69p and further directing to pay the said amount within fifteen days and to further pay monthly rent @ Rs. 341/ -. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus.
(2.) PLAINTIFFS Prasanna Kumar & Sunil Kumar filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendants with the allegations, in short that they are in occupation and possession of the disputed premises as tenants on monthly rent of Rs. 481/- and they have not paid rent since Kartik Sudi 1 Samvat 2038 The defendants filed their written-statement resisting the suit and claiming fixation of standard rent under Sec. 6 of the Act @ Rs 90/-ner month The parties filed their affidavits in support of their contentions. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court held that the premises was let out at the rate of Rs. 341/- after 1965 and, accordingly fixed the provisional rent at this rate under Sec 7 of the Ac and determined the amount of rent and interest under Sec. 13 (3) of the Act. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the learned trial court has seriously erred in not taking into consideration that a huge amount was spent by the plaintiff in effecting material alterations and raising construction in the demise premises and the provisional rent should have been determined at the agreed rate of Rs. 481/- per month. He further contended that the amount of rent and interest should have been determined under Sec. 13 (3) of the Act at the rate last paid, i. e. , Rs. 481/- per month and the provisions of Sec. 7 cannot go to over-ride the provisions of Sec. 13 (3) of the Act. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that the learned trial court has seriously erred to hold that the basic rent of the disputed premises was Rs. 341/- and not Rs. 60/- per month. He also contended chat the trial court seriously erred in preferring the affidavits of the plaintiffs than that of the defendants for determining the standard rent of the demise premises. It is not in dispute that the defendants have claimed for the fixation of standard rent in their written-statements. As such the suit became of the composite nature, i. e. , for the recovery of arrears of rent and for fixation of standard rent. It was the duty of the court to fix provisional rent as soon as written-statement claiming the relief of fixation of standard rent was filed. It is clearly provided in Sec. 7 (1) of the Act that the order fixing provisional rent shall be binding on the parties concerned and shall remain in force till a decree fixing the standard rent is finally made. Section 13 (3) of the Act provides that the amount of rent and arrears shall be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid or was payable. After the fixation of the provisional rent under Sec. 7 of the Act, the arrear of rent has to be determined at the rate it was payable. It cannot, therefore, be said that the trial court committed illegality in not determining the rent of the entire period at the agreed rate of Rs. 431/-per month. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff that previously monthly rent of the demise premises was Rs. 341/ -. Their case is that the demise premises was let out on monthly rent of Rs, 431/- to the defendant after material alteration and construction were effected and repairs were carried out in it. It is correct that standard rent can be increased on this ground under Sec. 10 of the Act. The learned trial court has observed that the plaintiffs have not furnished the necessary particulars regarding the material alteration effected, construction raised and repairs carried out in the demise premises and have also not disclosed the total amount spent by him in carrying out them. It is not the case of the plaintiff that they have furnished those necessary particulars or otherwise established them. In the absence of necessary material, enhancement in the provisional rent was not possible. The determination of provisional rent is subject to final decision. It is open to the plaintiff to produce necessary evidence on these points. Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned trial court seriously erred in not enhancing the provisional rent, Thus there is no force in the plaintiff's appeal.
(3.) THERE is also no force in the defendant's appeal. The defendants have utterly failed to establish even prima facie that the suit premises was let out at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month in the year 1962. In the absence of any material, standard" rent could not be fixed at the rate of Rs 90/- per mouth. The defendants alleged that the premises was let out to M/s. Padam Chand & Company at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month in the year 1965 and thereafter. The plaintiffs' case is that the entire suit premises was not let out to M/s. Padam Chand & Company at the rate of Rs. 150/: per month. The learned trial court has properly discussed the affidavits of the defendant Mohanlal and of his Munim Pukhraj and also of the plaintiff's father Deep Chand. In the absence of any material on record, it cannot be said that the trial court seriously erred in preferring the affidavit of the plaintiff-Deep Chand than that of the defendant Mohan Lal and his witness- Pukh Raj. This determination of standard rent is provisional. It is open to both the parties to adduce evidence during trial. Thus there is no force in both the appeals. Consequently, both the appeals are summarily dismissed. .;