Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 389
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Prem Shanker Asopa
Man Mohan Das Mundra - Appellant
Versus
Shiv Kunwar - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8338 of 2004
Decided On : 02/08/2006
Mr. P.S. Shukla, for the Petitioners.
Mr. B.L. Agarwal and Mr. Rajendra Salecha, for the Respondents.
The determination of provisional rent under Section 7 of the Act of 1950 is subject to final determination under Section 7(5), and the rent received from sub-letting can be a relevant consideration for fixing provisional rent.
Headnote:
Rent Control - Provisional Determination of Rent - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 7 - 6(1), 6(3), 7(1), 7(5)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the provisional determination of rent under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The disputed premises were leased to Gaura Devi, and after her death, the petitioner, her son, became the possessor. The respondents sought determination of standard rent based on the rent received by the petitioner from sub-letting the premises for parking.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisional rent determined by the trial court, based on the rent received by the petitioner from sub-letting, was just and legal. The court held that the determination of provisional rent is subject to final determination under Section 7(5) and no interference was warranted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the relevance of the rent received from sub-letting for the determination of provisional rent, and the applicability of Sections 6(1), 6(3), 7(1), and 7(5) of the Act of 1950.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rent received from sub-letting was the most relevant circumstance for fixing provisional rent and that the determination of provisional rent was just and legal, subject to final determination under Section 7(5).
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no interference was called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-That by this writ petition the Petitioner-defendant No. 1 has challenged the order of provisional determination of rent of the premises in dispute under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act of 1950) dated 19.07.2004 passed by Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, to the tune of Rs. 9,269/-p.m.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Shri Ishwar Singh executed a lease-deed in favour of Gaura Devi of the premises on 16.03.1977 at the rate of Rs. 1,600/-p.m.
3. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed a civil suit for partition against Ishwar Singh and a partition decree was passed and the present disputed premises came in the portion of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the rent of the same was fixed at the rate of Rs. 843.70 paisa. Smt. Gaura Devi died on 23.03.1998 and presently the premises are in possession of Petitioner No. 1 being a son and successor.
4. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an application under Section 6 of the Act of 1950 for determination of standard rent. In the said application they have submitted that as the defendant-petitioner is getting Rs. 9,269/-from the other respondents by way of rent on account of further letting out the premises for parking, and the value of the land has been increased from 10 to 12 times. Presently the total value of the land is Rs. 50 lacs. Therefore, the standard rent be fixed at the rate of Rs. 9,269/-p.m. from the date of filing of civil suit.
5. The petitioner defendant has submitted before the trial Court that he is the Trustee of Manmohandas Moondra Trust, and the said Trust is the tenant of plaintiff respondent and the Trust has not been impleaded as a party. He has further taken the ground that he has made many improvements over the plot and whatever he is getting on account of the facility provided to other respondents, that is not the rent. Therefore, the same is not having any relevancy for the purposes of determination of standard rent.
6. The trial Court has proceeded to determine provisional rent under Section 7 of the Rent Act, 1950 and has considered the fact that from the material on record, more particularly Exhibit-3, and Exhibit-4, receipts of the rent given to Mohandas Moondra, the petitioner-defendant, are in the name of Man Mohandas Moondra, in the capacity of legal representative of late Gaura Devi. Therefore, for the purposes of determination of the rent, it would be justified to hold the petitioner as tenant.
7. As regards the determination of the provisional rent is concerned, the Court has considered the admitted total amount of Rs. 9,269/-per month received by petitioner-defendant from the other defendants, who are the sub-tenants and fixed the same as provisional rent.
8. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the rent/amount received by the petitioner defendant on account of facility given to him after development of the plot cannot be a relevant consideration for provisional determination of the rent. The Court has acted contrary to the provisions of Sections 6(3) and 7. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is liable to be set-aside. In support of his submissions the Counsel for the petitioner has cited the Judgment reported in Malpe Vishwannath Acharya & Ors. vs. State of Maharastra & Anr., 1999 (2) RLW 254 (SC).
9. The Counsel for the respondents submits that the mother of the petitioner who was given the premises on lease, which are now being possessed by the petitioner-defendant is getting Rs. 9,269/-as rent by letting out the same to other defendants for parking place. Therefore, the said circumstance is the most relevant circumstance for determination of the provisional rent and the trial Court has rightly considered the same. In support of his submissions, he has cited the Judgment of this Court reported in Mahesh Bhatiya & Ors. vs. Saraogi Mansion Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2004 (3) DNJ 1047 (Raj.) and the J
