MODI, J.—This is a reference by a learned Single Judge and the question referred to us as arising out of the first proviso to sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Rajas-than Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. 17 of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act) has been formulated as follows :—

"In cases of premises first let out after 1-1-46 can the standard rent be fixed below the basic rent thereof?"

2. In order to appreciate the point referred to us a few facts may be stated. The tenant who is the respondent before us filed a suit for fixation of standard rent with respect to the suit shop for which a rent of Rs. 60/- had been agreed by him to be paid to the landlord. The latter resisted the suit on the ground that the whole shop had been let out by him to the respondent for the first time on the 1st day of February, 1957 and, therefore, the standard rent could not be fixed below the figure of Rs. 60/-per mensem, which, according to him, was the basic rent within the meaning of sec. 6(2) of the Act. This plea was repelled by the trial Court which held that the agreed rent was excessive and consequently it was fixed at Rs. 40/- per mensem. The landlord went up in appeal to the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur, who modified the standard rent fixed by the trial Court and raised it to Rs. 44/- per mensem. Thereupon the landlord preferred the present revision, which came for disposal before a learned Single Judge of this Court. One of the points raised before him was that in the case of premises first let out after 1st January, 1946, the rent agreed between the parties would be the basic rent and that being so the courts would not be justified in fixing the standard rent below that limit. The learned Single Judge seems to have been inclined to accept this view but he was faced with the decision of Wanchoo C.J. in Gurbux Rai vs. Aman Singh (1). The precise point which has been raised in this case came up for consideration before the learned Chief Justice, as he then was, and he held as follows:—

"The argument on behalf of the opposite parties is that under this proviso (this is the first proviso to sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6) the rent agreed upon, in case premises are let out, for the first time, after Jan., 1946, is the basic rent, and the standard rent to be fixed by the court must be the basic rent. I am of the view that this is not the correct interpretation of this proviso. The proviso does not say that in such a case the standard rent shall be equal to the basic rent. It only says that the standard rent shall not exceed the basic rent. It does fix a maximum, but does not fix a minimum. In these circumstances, the power of the court to reduce the rent agreed upon in case it is found to be excessive is still there, and the court can proceed under sub-sec. (3)."

3. As against this reliance was placed by the landlord on the observations made in a Bench decision of this Court in Shambhu Ram vs. Kanhiyalal (2), to which one of us was a party. The relevant observations are to the following effect—

"It appears to us that while one of the main objects of the Act was certainly to afford security of their tenancy rights and protection against excessive rents to the tenants, the fra-mers of the Act also intended that the landlords may not be denied some increase in the rents which were fixed years ago, say in 1942 or 1943 or earlier, and had become entirely out of harmony with the prevailing conditions in 1950. We may make it clear in this connection that the intention of the Act clearly appears to us to be that no variation in the rents of tenancies dating from after the 1st January, 1946, is as a rule contemplated by the Legislature. Any rents fixed before that date appear to us to be susceptible to variation within the limitations provided under the Act. A ceiling was, however, fixed for such increase which is not to exceed 50% in the case of residential properties or properties devoted to certain educational or public purposes specified in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document