In a case where a suit is filed by the plaintiff for arrears of rent and the defendant also takes a plea for fixation of standard rent, the court should apply its mind by taking into consideration cumulatively the provisions of Section 13(3) as well as Section 7 for fixing the provisional rent.

1. - This revision by the defendant is directed against the order of Additional District Judge No. 1, dated 31-3-1986 confirming the older of Civil Judge, Alwar dated 26-11-1982.

2. Brief facts leading to this revision are that the plaintiff non-petitioner filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner and Shri Babu Ram Joshi, non-petitioner No. 2, According to the plaintiff the disputed premises were given on rent in June, 1972 at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. It was further alleged that the defendants had not paid any rent since 1-2-1980 and had thus committed default in the payment of rent for more than 6 months. The suit was also based on the reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiff and that the defendant had sublet the premises.

3. The defendant petitioner filed a written statement denying all the allegations and further took the plea that the premises were initially taken on rent at Rs. 100/- per month in 1972 and thereafter the rent was increased to Rs. 115/- per month in December, 1972 and to Rs. 125/- per month from September, 1975 and in December, 1975 the rent was increased to Rs. 150/-per month. It was further averred that the rent was paid by the defendant according to the above rates and receipts were issued by the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the rent of the premises was Rs. 60/- only before it was let out to the defendant. In these circumstances the defendant prayed that the basic rent of the premises being Rs. 60/- per month on at Rs. 100/-per month, the standard rent should be fixed by the court.

4. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the written statement in which he took the plea that the premises were never let out to the defendants on Rs. 100/- per month, in 1977 but it was let out at Rs. 150/- per month. It was further stated in the rejoinder that the same premises were let out in 1968 @ Rs. 125/- per month and as such there was no question of letting out the same premises to the defendants @ Rs. 100/- per month in 1972. It was also alleged that admittedly since 1976 the defendant was paying rent at rate of Rs. 150/- per month and at present the premises could fetch Rs. 1000/-per month. It was also stated in the rejoinder that hugs amount was spent by the plaintiff before letting out the same to the defendant and there is great rise in rent in the premises situated at Alwar.

5. Learned trial court by order dated 26-11-1982 determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to the Act) at rate of Rs. 150/-per month which was the last paid rent by the defendant. The petitioner aggrieved against the order of the learned trial court filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alwar by order dated 31-3-1986.

6. The defendant aggrieved against the orders of the lower courts has filed this revision.

7. It was contended by Mr. P.D. Mathur, learned Counsel for the defendant that the defendant had taken a plea in the written statement for fixation of standard rent and had also taken a plea that the basic rent was Rs. 60/- per month or at the most Rs. 100/- per month on first day of January, 1965 and as such the provisional rent ought to have been fixed in accordance with Section 7 of the Act. It was submitted that if the standard rent itself could not have exceeded more than Rs. 120/- per month, there was no question of fixing the provisional rent at rate of Rs. 150/- per month,

8. It was further submitted that the lower courts were not right in determining the rent under Section 13(3) of the Act on the basis of the agreed rent, when the defendant petitioner had taken a plea of fixation of standard rent in the written statement, It was contended that in these circumstances the court was bound to decide the provisional rent under Section 7 of the Act and not in accordance with the principles contained under Section 13(3) of the Act. It w