R.S. Chauhan, J.—The dispute over provisional rent under Sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 (henceforth to be referred to as ‘the Act of 1950’, for short) has brought the parties before this Court. The appellants-the tenants are challenging the order dt. 09.01.2004 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur to the extent the learned Judge has determined the provisional rent of the premises rented to the appellants @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per month.

2. This case has a checkered history. One Mr. Prem Chand Khinduka (henceforth to be referred to as ‘the previous owner’, for short) was the owner of a building, popularly known as the ‘Khinduka Bhawan’, situated at 2844, Circle No. 13, New Colony, Chowki Hawali, Jaipur. It is a two story high building. Vide lease deed dt. 01.08.1963, which was registered on 10.09.1963, he let out the front part of the premises to the appellant Company. Since the appellant Company needed more space in the premises, an additional portion (the back portion of the building) was rented out to the appellants on 07.06.1966. However, in 1971, the previous owner filed a civil suit for eviction of the appellants from the front portion of the building before the Court of Additional Munsiff. Subsequently, in April 1972, he filed another suit for eviction of the appellants from the back portion of the building. During the pendency of the two suits, the previous owner also filed a suit for fixation of standard rent under Sec. 6(2) of the Act of 1950. Vide order dt. 28.04.1979, the suits for eviction were decreed in favour of previous owner. Vide order dt. 23.05.1982, the standard rent for the building was fixed at Rs. 500/- per month. It is the appellants’ case that they have been paying the said standard rent ever since then.

3. However, as the appellants were aggrieved by the eviction order dt. 28.04.1979, they filed an appeal against the said order. Eventually, a Second Appeal was filed before this Court, registered as S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 44/1987. During the pendency of the said Second Appeal, the respondents moved an application before this Court under Sec. Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (‘the Code’, for short) for being impleaded as a party. For, according to the respondents they had bought the property through five registered sale deeds dt. 23.12.1995. However, vide judgment dt. 05.08.1996, this Court not only dismissed the application under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code, but also quashed and set aside the eviction order dt. 28.04.1979.

4. Thereafter, in November 2002, the respondents filed a suit for eviction against the appellants. The said suit is still pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaipur. Meanwhile, the respondents also filed a suit for fixation of Standard rent under Sec. 6 of the Act of 1950. According to the appellants, in the said suit, the respondents did not reveal to the learned trial Court about the previous fixation of standard rent vide order dt. 23.05.1982. According to the appellants, the suit was fixed for framing of issues. However, the learned Civil Court did not frame any issues on 28.11.2002, 15.01.2003, and 25.02.2003. On 04.03.2003, the respondents moved an application under Sec. 7 of the Act for fixation of provisional rent of the rented premises. On 09.12.2003, the appellants moved an application before the learned trial Court for framing two issues with regard to the maintainability of the suit for fixation of standard rent and about the applicability of res judicata in the said case as the standard rent was already fixed vide order dt. 23.05.1982. Vide order dt. 09.01.2004, the learned Judge while framing the issues, also fixed the provisional rent of the rented premises as Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

5. Mr. H.L. Tikku, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised various contentions before this Court: firstly, the standard rent is not fixed qua

Click Here to Read the rest of this document