Standard rent fixation must reflect contemporary market conditions and is upheld unless substantial legal errors are demonstrated.

ORDER :

1. The present Civil Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant–defendant–tenant assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Bhilwara, in Civil Appeal No. 25/2022, whereby the first appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Senior Civil Judge No. 2, Bhilwara, in Civil Original Case No. 612/2014, came to be affirmed.

2. In brief, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondents–plaintiffs instituted a civil suit seeking fixation of standard rent in respect of two shops situated at Chandrashekhar Azad Market, Bhopalganj, Bhilwara. The suit premises were let out to the appellant–tenant about thirty-five years ago at a nominal monthly rent of Rs. 64/-. It is undisputed that the said rent has continued unchanged for more than three decades.

2.1. The appellant has, therefore, preferred the present Second Appeal challenging the concurrent findings of both the courts below, which determined and affirmed the standard rent at Rs. 7,000/- per month, effective from the year 2002.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant–defendant, on the other hand, submitted that the shops are situated within a predominantly residential precinct and not in a commercially thriving zone as alleged. It was further urged that the premises are in a dilapidated condition, lacking basic amenities such as electricity and water supply, which considerably depreciates their rental worth. The appellant contended that the enhanced rent sought by the respondents is arbitrary and unfounded, unsupported by any credible or independent valuation report. It was also emphasized that the respondents failed to produce rent receipts, comparative rental agreements, or the testimony of any witness from similarly situated properties to substantiate their claim regarding market rent.

3.1 In addition to the above, the appellant raised certain procedural infirmities, alleging non-compliance with the statutory provisions relating to payment of the appropriate court fees under the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. It was further contended that the courts below overlooked relevant evidence, particularly the comparatively lower rents of neighboring shops, and consequently failed to make a balanced assessment of the facts. According to the appellant, both courts misapplied and misconstrued Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which lay down the parameters for fixation of standard rent. On these premises, it was prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees be quashed and set aside.

4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents–plaintiffs vehemently contended that the suit premises are situated in a well-established and rapidly developing commercial locality which, over the past two decades, has undergone a transformative escalation in both property valuations and rental potential. It was urged that the token rent of Rs. 64/- per month, determined nearly three and a half decades ago, has long since ceased to bear any reasonable correlation to prevailing market realities. The respondents emphasized that the entire Chandrashekhar Azad Market and its adjoining areas, including the prominent Apsara Complex, have evolved into a vibrant commercial hub, housing a wide array of retail establishments, showrooms, and business enterprises.

4.1. In substantiation