The court established that ongoing rent fixation cases are governed by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, despite the enactment of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

Judgment

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffappellant (hereinafter to be referred as 'plaintiff') against the judgment dated 26.02.2009 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Ajmer (for short, the 'Court below') in Civil Suit No. 75/07 (23/03, 26/03) by which the application filed by the plaintiff for fixation of rent has been partly allowed.

2. Facts in brief of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants/respondents (for short 'the defendants') under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950') for fixation of standard rent stating therein that the property was let out to the them 40-45 years back and thereafter the lease was also executed on 01.02.1992 between the plaintiff and defendants for the purpose of payment of rent @ Rs. 900/- per month. It was pleaded in the plaint that the premises in question consists of 25029 Sq. yard land and he can fetch on rent @ Rs. 17600/- per month but the defendants denied to make payment of the said rent, hence, the application was submitted for fixation of the rent.

3. The defendants submitted their reply and denied the averments made in the plaint and submitted that previously the rent was fixed as Rs. 50/- per month which was enhanced to Rs. 900/- per month with effect from 01.02.1992 and lease deed was also executed in this regard. It was also pleaded by the defendants in the reply that they have deposited the rent under Section 19 (A) of the Rent Control Act but the plaintiff refused to accept the same. Defendants further submitted that no cause of action arose to file the said suit for determination of rent.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed as many as 6 issues and decided the plaint finally vide judgment dated 26.02.2009 on the basis of the judgment of Kamal Kishore and 16 Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2008)(2) RLW (Raj.) 192. During the pendency of the above proceedings, the plaintiff as well as defendants submitted the valuation report of the premises. Considering both the reports, the Court below came to the conclusion that the rented premise is a residential one and accordingly the rent was determined vide impugned judgment.

5. Mr. M.M. Ranjan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Lokesh Tiwari appearing for the plaintiff submits that the judgment passed by the Court below is based on the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Kamal Kishore (supra). Learned counsel submits that there were conflicting views on the issue of fixation of rent, hence the matter was referred to the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Bhag Chand Vs. Additional District Judge No. 5, Kota and Ors. reported in 2009 (3) RLW 2081 (Raj.) and the Larger Bench of this Court has answered the question in favour of the plaintiff. Counsel further submits that without there being any evidence available on record, the Court below has treated the suit premises as residential one. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned judgment passed by the Court below is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court.

6. Per contra, counsel for the defendants opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the Court below has correctly taken into consideration the factors while passing the impugned judgment. Thus the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2009 passed by the Court below does not call for any interference by this Court.

7. Counsel for the defendants, however, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff with regard to the settled proposition of law for determination of rent in the present case in the light of the judgment of Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Bhag Chand (supra).

8. I have considered the submissions made by both the counsel at Bar and gone through the impugned jud