The court affirmed the trial court's discretion in determining standard rent and the effective date for its applicability under the Rajasthan Premises Act.

ORDER

1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short, the defendants') against the judgment dated 5.12.2019, whereby the Trial Court determined the standard rent of both the suit shops at Rs. 1,13,160/- and Rs. 50,160/- respectively and held the plaintiff entitled to get the standard rent so fixed from the date of filing the suits.

2. Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned Sr. Counsel with Mr. Abhi Goyal, Advocate submits that since in the year 1978, the standard rent had already been fixed @ Rs. 710/- per month and Rs. 705/- respectively, therefore, the present suits filed by the plaintiffs were barred by principle of res-judicata and not sustainable.

3. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that the suit property is in a dilapidated condition as it was rented out in the year 1958. He further submits that rent of the nearby shops in the vicinity is not @ Rs. 70/- per sq. ft. The shops of which the rent is said to be Rs. 72/- per sq. ft. or Rs. 70/- per sq. ft., are located at a far better place and are situated in Nehru Bajar and at M.I. Road, Jaipur respectively, whereas the present shops are situated in Bapu Bajar. He further submits that the trial court without there being any evidence on record, assessed the rent @ Rs. 60/- per sq. ft. and determined the rent at Rs. 1,13,160/- and Rs. 50,160/- respectively, which is excessive. He further submits that since the tenancy is of the year 1958 and shops are old, prevailing rent of the shops in the vicinity cannot be much relevant for determination of the standard rent of these shops. The rate for assessing the rent should not exceed Rs. 40/- to 50/- per sq. ft. and looking to the area and conditions of the shops, the trial court ought to have determined the rent on reasonable basis.

4. Learned Sr. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act of 1950') and submits that if the tenant institutes a suit under the Act of 1950, the date for fixation of standard rent shall be the date of the institution of suit, but in every other case (e.g. in the case of landlord) in which the Court is required to determine the standard rent of any premises under this section, the Court shall determine / ascertain a date from which the standard rent so determined shall be deemed to be payable. In this view of the matter, the Court was required to determine the standard rent from the date of the order instead of date of filing the suit.

5. He further submits that as per valuation report (Ex.-5) prepared by the valuer and produced by the plaintiff himself, area of one of the suit shop is 78.07 Sq. Mtrs., which is approximately 840 Sq. Ft., but the trial court wrongly determined the standard rent treating the area as 1886 Sq. Ft. He further submits that as per valuer's report (Ex.-A/1) produced by the defendants, rental value of the suit shops is Rs. 19,203/- per month and Rs. 18,195/- per month respectively, which have not been considered by the trial court in right perspective.

6. It is also submitted that on an application filed under Section 151 CPC, the defence of the defendants was wrongly struck off vide order dated 20.7.2019, which is per-se illegal and not sustainable. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of this Court towards Section 7 (4) of the Act of 1950. He further submits that the order dated 20.7.2019 has already been challenged by the defendants in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5287/2019, which is pending adjudication. In this way, the defendants have not been given any opportunity to lead evidence.

7. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that both the shops are adjacent to each other and the facilities in Bapu Bajar are less than those in Nehru Bajar and M.I. Road. Looking to the area, condition of the shops, rent of the nearby shops in the vicinity and non availability of the facilities in Bapu Bajar, both the appeals deserve to be admitted and execution pr