Back
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Sen, J.
Jagdish Prasad - Appellant
Versus
Kapoor Chand - Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 254 of 1971
Decided On : August 09, 1977
When the Act provides for a revision under the proviso to sub sec. (2) of sec 6 of the Act, it is urged that the revision must be taken as a continuation of the suit i.e., the suit must be regarded as still pending for purposes of sec. 6 of the Act. The Court is, therefore, bound to take into consideration the amended provisions of the Explanation for purposes of the determination of the basic rent. The basic rent for purposes of determination of standard rent, must be the rent agreed upon between the parties on the first day of January, 1962. (Para 11)
The contention that mere claim by the landlord or the tenant that the rent of a premise is low or excessive invests the Court with jurisdiction based on a literal meaning of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 6, cannot be accepted. Such a construction would defact the very scheme of the Act. The object of the Act is to control eviction and regulate the relation of landlord and tenant by determining fair rent and providing payments thereof. Section 5 of the Act provides that the rent for any premises situate within the area to which this Act extends for the time being shall, subject to the other provisions thereof, be ordinarily such, as may be agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant. There is no bar for increasing of prevailing agreed rent where no standard rent has been fixed, if the agreed rent is too low. Similarly, there can be scaling down of the agreed rent if it is found that the rent agreed upon is too high Then comes sub-sec. (1) and sub sec. 2 of section 6, the material portion of which is quoted above. Clause a) provides for an increase of the basic rent by 50 per cent thereof, where the premises are let for residential purposes or for any other public purposes such as hospitals, educational institutions etc. or where the premises are let for any other purposes, the standard rent shall not exceed the basic rent increased by 50%. Clause (b) provides for the premises, let for any other purposes i. e. the commercial purposes the standard rent shall not exceed 2-1/2 times the basic rent thereof. Where the premises have been let on or after first day of January 1965, the standard rent shall not exceed the basic rent thereof. The explanation defines what the basic rent is, i.e., the agreed rent as on first day of Jan. 1962. On a plain reading of these provisions, it is clear that the Court is not invested with jurisdiction on the mere claim by the landlord or the tenant that the rent agreed upon was too low or too excessive Despite the language of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 6, it is implicit in the very nature of things, that the Court must come to a definite finding that the agreed rent was too low or too excessive. That is the only reasonable construction possible on the courts power in the matter of fixation of standard rent The court, therefore, can be invested with jurisdiction to fix the standard rent of a premise unless it finds, as a fact, that the agreed rent was too low or too high. (Paras 21, 22 & 23)
2. This litigation has had a chequered career. The parties are closely related and also stand in the relation of landlord and tenant. The demised premises comprise of two shops in the heart of business locality of Hindaun. Joharilals daughter was married to Ram Sahai, father of Kapoor Chand, while Jagdish Prasad who is another daughters son of Johari Lal, was taken in adoption by him. Kapoor Chands father Ram Sahai baing in indigenous circumstances, Joharilal brought the family to Hindaun and set them up in business. The demised premises were given to Ram Sahai in St. year 1987 for starting a business, and Johari lai helped him with money to set up the business. It appears that the rent charged for the two shops was Rs. 8/ per mensem.
3. In St. year 2007, Johari Lal took the defendant Jagdish Prasad in adoption and made a gift of substantia] property comprising of one house and eight shops to the other daughters son, viz. Kapoor Chand. In 1950, Joharilal made substantial changes in the premises by adding one Verandah and provided electricity and the facility of one iron safe; and, the parties by mutual agreement settled the rent of the premises at Rs. 50/-per mensem. On April 2, 1961, the plaintiffs, who are the sons and daughters of Ram Sahai, excuted a Kirayanama in favour of the defendant Jagdish Prasad stipulating payment of Rs. 80/- per mensem as rent.
4. The plaintiffs, however, instituted a suit on September 19, 1961, for fixation of standard rent under sec. 6 of the Act. The Munsif, Hindaun, by his judgment and decree dated May 18, 1966 dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that the shops were not let out at Rs. 8/- per mensem in St. 1987 by Joharilal to Ram Sahai but were given to him out of natural love and affection with a view to set him up in business at Hindaun; that the shops were let out by Johari Lal to the plaintiffs Ram Sahai and others in St. 2010 on a rent of Rs. 50/-per mensem after he had spent a considerable amount in reconstruction of the shops by adding a verandah and giving to them an attractive look and also providing electricity and the facility of an iron safe; and that the Kirayanama dated April 2, 1961 was executed by the plaintiffs agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 80/-per mensem; and, that that should be taken to be the basic rent for purposes of explanation to sub-sec.(2) of sec.6 of the Act and accordingly the rent of Rs. 80/-per mensem had to be taken to be the standard rent. While dismissing the plaintiffs suit, the learned Munsif disbelieved their witnesses holding them to be rank liers and also that the documents filed by them were forged and fabricated.
5. On appeal, the Senior Civil Judge No. 2, Gangapur City, by his order dated October 26, 1967 remanded the suit under Order 41 rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by remitting the following issue, with a direction to record additional evidence, and for sending his finding thereon: —
Whether the rent of the suit shops at the rale of Rs 80/- per month as agreed upon betweem the parties in the year 1961 is excessive and the defendants could not increase the rent to this extent in view of the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950, and if so, what is its effect on the suit?"
6. On the additional issue remitted, the learned Munsif recorded his finding dated December 23, 1967 holding that the rent of Rs 80/-per mensem as a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
