Jagat Narayan, J.—These are connected revision applications arising out of a suit for fixation of standard rent filed by one Mohan Lal, a tenant of a shop situated in the Minerva building against his landlords Ranjeet Singh and Dhanpat Singh under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 on the ground that the agreed rent was excessive.

2. The construction of the Minerva building was completed in 1951 and Mohan Lal took the shop on 13.12.51 on an agreed rent of Rs. 65/- per month. The present suit for fixation of rent was instituted on 6.5.52 in the court of Munsif City Jodhpur who fixed the standard rent at Rs. 47/8/- per month under his order dated 23.12.53. Both the tenants and the landlords preferred appeals against this decision in the court of the District Judge who dismissed both these appeals on 6.1.55. Both parties filed revisions against the appellate order of the District Judge on the ground that he had acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

3. During the pendency of these applications the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was amended by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of rent and Eviction) Amending and Extending Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) which came into force on 27.11.57. Under the Amending Act a new proviso was added in sec. 2 to the effect that the Act shall not apply "to any premises the construction of which was completed on or after the 1st June 1951, for a period of 7 years from the date of such completion". An application was thereafter moved on behalf of the landlords that the shop in dispute having been completed after 1st June, 1951 the provisions of the Act did not apply to it for a period of seven years from 1.6.51 and the suit for fixation of standard rent should accordingly be dismissed On behalf of the tenant it was disputed that the shop was completed before 1st June 1951. The following issue was therefore framed and remitted to the trial court for decision—

"Whether the shop occupied By Mohan Lal, which is in dispute, was completed on or after 1st June 1951".

The learned Munsif gave an opportunity to the parties to produce oral and documentary evidence and after hearing them came to the finding that the shop in dispute was completed after 1st June 1951.

4. This finding was disputed before me on behalf of the tenant. I was taken through the evidence on record by the learned counsel for the the parties and after hearing then I am satisfied that the finding is correct.

5. The case of the landlords was that the shop in dispute was completed in the first week of October 1951. The case put forward on behalf of the tenant was that it was completed on 1st March 1951. Five witnesses were examined on behalf of the landlords. Out of these Chandan Mal D.W.1 is an employee of the landlords under whose supervision the Minerva building was constructed. He is also a relative of the landlords. Mohammad Yakub D.W. 5 is the contractor who constructed the Minerva building. Kishan Narain D.W. 4 stated that he was on the look out for a shop in the Minerva building which was under construction and entered into negotiation for taking the shop in dispute on rent before its completion. He said that after it was completed he took it on rent at Rs. 65/- per month with effect from 1.11.51 and executed rent-note Ex. D. 1. He further stated that when a better shop situated on the Station Road in the same building became available he took it on rent and left the shop in dispute. It may be mentioned here that the shop in dispute is situated on the Hospital Road side of the building. Gokul Narain D W. 2 and Ram Sharma D.W. 3 are formal witnesses who also proved rent note Ex. 1. The learned Munsif before whom these witnesses gave evidence believed them and I see no reason to differ from him. The main criticism advanced on behalf of the tenant was that the landlords failed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document