ISRANI, J— This is a revision petition under section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as "The Act") against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota in Civil Regular Appeal No. 48/83 reversing the judgment and decree dated 4.2.1982 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Kota in civil suit No. 5/77 (234/80).

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the plaintiff-petitioners instituted a suit under section 6 of the Act in the trial court against the non-petitioner on 17.1.1977 for increasing the rent of the premises let out to the non-petitioner at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. as rent. It was pleaded by the petitioners in the plaint that the rent was low and since the shop under suit was let out to the non-petitioner on 1.6.1964, hence it was contended that rent be increased from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 1000/- p.m. The non-petitioner filed written statement and pleaded that the shop was let out in the month of February, 1965 and as such the suit was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that there was contract between the parties, according to which the petitioners were not entitled to increase the rent for a period of 20 years. Following issues were framed by the trial court in the suit :

(1) Whether the disputed shop was let out to the defendant in the month of February, 1965 and as such the suit was not maintainable?

(2) Whether the suit was pre-mature according to the facts pleaded in para No. 5 of the written statement?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to determine the rent at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month according to section 6 of the Act?

(4) Whether the defendant was entitled to get Rs. 1500/- as special cost from the plaintiffs.

(5) Relief ?

Both the parties led evidence and after hearing arguments the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by its judgement dated 4.2.1982 and the standard rent of the shop under suit was determined at Rs. 800/- per month from 1.2.1977. An appeal was preferred by the non-petitioner, which was accepted by the first appellate court and the judgement and decree of the trial court was reversed, but its judgement and decree dated 14.11.1983.

3. I have heard Shri S.M. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.P. Agrawal learned counsel appearing for the non petitioner and have also gone through the judgments of both the court, evidence and other documents on record.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first appellate court has misread the evidence and has also mis directed itself while reversing the judgment of the trial court. It is contended that the conclusion of the first appellate court that there is no pleading of the petitioners or specific finding of the trial court that the rent was low and therefore, the rent could not be increased under the provisions of sec. 6 of the Act, is against the evidence on record. It is further contended that the first appellate court has mis-directed itself by taking the view that the provisions regarding increase of rent are contained in sections 10 and 11 of the Act. It is pointed out that section 10 deals with the circumstances in which the standard rent is liable to be increased and section 11 of the Act provides for procedure for increase in the rent. This suit was filed under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act for fixing the standard rent and therefore, section 10 was evidently not applicable to the facts of the present case as no prayer had been made for increase of any standard rent that might have been earlier fixed by any court regarding the premises under suit. It is further pointed out that in para 20 of the judgment of the first appellate court, it has been wrongly mentioned that the petitioners have accepted that Rs. 400/- rent per month, was adequate. Nowhere in his statement Narain Lal plaintiff (PW 1) has so stated. This clearly amounts

Click Here to Read the rest of this document