Honble PRASAD, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2). The suit was instituted by plaintiff for ejectment, mense profits and fixing of standard rent. The appellant has challenged the fixation of provisional rent, which is claimed to be on the higher side. According to the learned counsel, in 1970 the premises was let out at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. The learned counsel submits that the premises which was let out for Rs. 125/- in 1970 its rent has been enhanced to Rs. 2,000/-. According to the learned counsel, this increase is disproportionate. The learned counsel has further submitted that increase of Rs.2000/- is only for the period starting from January, 2004. Prior to this the rent has been enhanced from Rs. 125/- to Rs. 300/-. That too again is in the higher side. The rent has been fixed in many multiplies of the original rent. Provisional rent is to be fixed in terms of Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act).

(3). It has been urged that while deciding the question of fixation of provisional rent the trial court has taken into consideration such parameters which could not have been looked into. The determination is, therefore, not justified.

(4). The learned counsel for the respondent, controverting the allegations of the appellant, submitted that it is not correct to say that the rent fixed is not within the Scheme, provided by the Act. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as and when a court is to consider fixation of provisional rent, under the Scheme of the Act of 1950, it has to do so in summary manner. While doing so it can look into the Scheme of the Act as provided in Section 6(3) of the Act. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Act the Court is to hold summary enquiry. It is for holding such enquiry, broader view of the provision in Section 6(3) of the Act is taken into consideration though it cannot be said to be out of place for that. Expression standard rent in Section 6(3) of the Act can be construed to be provisional rent. The whole exercise, therefore, can be taken in that light. In terms of these provisions, the Court has to see that standard rent (read provisional) of any premise if not possible to be determined in view of the provisions of Section 6(2), Section 6(3) of the Act is to be resorted to. Thus, the standard (rent provisional) rent has to be fixed in terms of Section 6(3) of the Act of 1950. Now, that provision of Section 6(2) of the Act has been struck down by this Court in Khem Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and Another 1999 (2) WLC (Raj.) 228 = RLW 1999 (2) Raj. 908, the court has to look into the scheme of Section 6(3). In the scheme of Section 6(3) the court has to take into consideration the following factors–

(1) having due regard to the prevailing rent or standard rent for similar premises in the same locality the various amenities (such as electricity, water connection, sanitary fittings and the like) attached to the premises,

(2) the cost of construction, maintenance and repairs thereof.

(3) the special reason, if any, proved by the plaintiff and

(4) other relevant considerations.

(5). The learned counsel emphasised that as and when the courts consider the question of fixation of standard (read provisional) rent under the Act of 1950 it has to consider the four factors enumerated herein above as delineated in sub-section (3) of Section 6. In the instant case in 1970 the rent was Rs. 125/-. In 1970 the gold prices were less than Rs. 100/- per tola. In 2004, when the order impugned was passed, the gold prices were escalating in between Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 7,000/-. This is almost 60 to 70 times of the price of gold in 1970. If the escalation of price is computed in terms of gold, the standard rent fixed by the trial court is below the level of inflation which has occurred in the price of gold. This can be one of the considerations, as delineated in sub-section (3) of Section 6 of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document