Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mohanlal vs Kurkut Utpadak Sahakari Samiti, ... on 13 July, 1988
Equivalent citations: AIR1989RAJ102, 1988(2)WLN324
ORDER Milap Chandra, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated July 9, 1985 by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated Dec. 23, 1981 by which he fixed the standard rent of the demised premises at the rate of Rs. 250/-per month from the date of the suit. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision may be summarised thus.
2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit under Section 6, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') in the Court of the Munsif City, Jodhpur with the allegations in short, that the shops Nos. 2, 3 and 7 were let out to the defendant on total monthly rent of Rs. 103/- the rent of each shop as on Jan. 1, 1962 was Rs. 35/- per month the cost of construction and maintenance has tremendously increased since then, the disputed shops are situated in premier locality of Jodhpur, namely, Ratanada Bazar where the rent of the shops has tremendously increased, the agreed rent of Rs. 103/- is very low in view of the prevaling rent of similar premises but in view of the provisions of the Act, the plaintiff claims enhancement to the permitted extent of Rs. 262.50p. The defendant admitted in his written statement to be in occupation and possessing of the three shops in suit on monthly rent of Rs. 103/-and the remaining allegations of the plaint have been denied. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial court held that the agreed rent of the suit shops is quite low, their basic rent is Rs. 105/-and, accordingly, fixed standard rent at Rs. 250/- per month by its judgment dated Dec. 23, 1981. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur held that the receipts Exs. 1 to 4 produced by the plaintiff showing the rent prevailing in the years 1961 and 1962 are forged and, accordingly, dismissed the suit.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the learned Additional District Judge has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in holding the receipts Exs. 1 to 4 as forged despite the fact that no suggestion was put in the cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses that these receipts were so and he did not at all consider the oral evidence of the plaintiff at all from which it was well proved that the rent of each shop as on Jan. 1, 1962 was Rs. 357- per month. He further contended that the learned Additional District Judge totally ignored the provisions of Sub-section(3) of Section 6 of the Act under which he was required to take into consideration the prevailing rent or standard rent for similar premises in the same locality, various amenities attached to the suit shops, cost of construction maintenance and repairs thereof on which the evidence was duly given for determining the standard rent.
4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioner that the scope of revision is very limited and the learned Additional District Judge has rightly held the receipts Exs. 1 to 4 to be forged. He further contended that the suit premises consist of three shops, admittedly three shops were not together let out in the year 1962, and, therefore, there was no question of their basic rent being Rs. 105/-per month, as according to the plaintiff, each shop was separately let out in the years 1961 and 1962. He relied upon Daulatraj v. Idol Shri Chhagan Mageanlal Ji Maharaj, 1969 Raj. L W. 502. He lastly contended that the plaintiff did not plead and prove his case under Section 6(3) of the Act.
5. ParaNo. 3 of the written-statement runs as under: --
^^3&&fidjk ua- 3 xyr gksus ls vLohdkj gS A 1&&1&&62 dks bu nqdkuksa dk fdjk;k 35@&:- izfrekg izfr nqdku dnkih ugha Fkk A izfroknh us nqdku ua- 3fnukad 1&4&69 dks 35@&:- ekgokjh fdjk, ij nqdku ua- 2fnukad 12&2&70 dks 35@&:- ekgokjh fdjk, ij rFkk nqdku ua- 7 fnukad 1&4&68 dks 30@&:- ekgokjh fdjk, ij yh A bl izdkj rhuks nqdkuks dk dqy fdjk;k :-
100@&izfr ekg gqvk A oknh us tkucw>dj i= ugh fy[kk fd 1&1&62 ds dkSu fdjk;snkj FkkA ,slh fLFkrh es izfroknh ;g ekyqe ugh dj ldrk fd ;g rF; dgkW rd lR;
gSA oknh us dksbZ jlhn ;k nLrkost Hkh is'k ugha dh bl rjg QthZ ogknr cukuk pkgrk gSA izfroknh budks ukeatwj djrk gSA ;g xyr gS fd csfld jsUV gj nqdku dk 35 egkokj gSA This fact was also desclosed by Avtar Singh D. W. 2 in his examination-in-chief. This pleading and evidence leave no doubt that three different shops were let out on three different dates ranging over about two years. As such it cannot be said that there was one tenancy in respect of these three shops and in other words, the demised premises consist of three shops. As such Daulatraj v. Idol Shri Chhagan Magan Lal Ji Maharaj, 1969 Raj LW 502 is not applicable in this case. In this reported case, initially one shop and one godown were together let out and separately another godown was let out in the year 1943 and subsequently, under the new agreement the said shop and two godowns were together let out and thus the premises let out subsequently were different from the premises let out initially in the year, 1943. It is not so in the instant case. Three shops were separately let out in the years 1961 and 1962 and these three shops were again separately let out to the defendant in the years 1968 and 1970. On both these occasions, each demised premises remained the same. It is not the case of the defendant that these shops did not exist on 1-1-1962 or they were not in the tenancy on 1-1-1962.
6. The receipts Exs. 1 to 4 relate to shops Nos. 2 and 3 none of them relates to shop No. 7. Despite it, the learned Additional District Judge set aside the finding of the learned trial court holding the rent of the shop No. 7 to be Rs. 35/- as on 1-1-62. Thus he acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity.
7. The receipts Exs. 1 to 4 were issued during the period from Nov. 1961 to March, 1962. Admittedly, the plaintiff was a Reader in the University of Jodhpur during those days. He might be having loose or torned papers of an exercise book. Simply on the basis of these receipts issued on such papers, it cannot be said that they were forged, particularly when no such suggestion was put in the cross-examination of the plaintiff Mohanlal P. W. 5 no Expert was produced to prove that the receipts were subsequently written. Order 6, Rule 2, C.P.C. ensuring that every pleading shall contain, and contain only a statement in a concise form of material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. It was, therefore, not necessary for the plaintiff to disclose the names of the tenants which were in occupation of the suit shops in the year 1962 and the particulars of the rent receipts issued to them by him. They were matters for evidence. It may also be mentioned here that in the list of documents, 7 C/1, filed along with the plaint, a note has been given in the remark column that the rent receipts issued in respect of the suit shops will not be summoned from the tenants. In view of these facts and circumstances, the finding of the learned Additional District Judge holding receipts Exs. 1 to 4 as forged is perverse.
8. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act runs as under:--
"3. Where for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises on the principles set out in Sub-section (2); the Court shall determine such rent, having due regard to (xxxx) 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, the cost of construction maintenance and repairs thereof, the special reasons, if any; proved by the plaintiff and other relevant considerations:"
The learned Additional District Judge has held that it is proved that the rent of the three shops in suit as on 1-1-62 was Rs. 105/-. It is not in dispute that the three shops in suit existed in the years 1961-62 and they were in occupation and possession of three tenants on 1-1-62. As such the above quoted provisions were fully applicable in this case. When standard rent could not be determined on the principle set out in Sub-section (2). It was mandatory for the appellate court to determine it on the basis of the prevailing rent or standard rent for similar premises in the same locality, various amenities attached to the suit shops and cost of construction, maintenance and repairs etc. These mandatory provisions were totally ignored by the learned Additional District Judge. He failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him.
9. It has specifically been pleaded in paras Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint that in view of the prevailing rent of similar accommodation in the locality high cost or construction and maintenance, commanding situation of the shops in suit and facilities available to the defendant, the suit shops would easily fetch Rs. 350/- p.m. The owner of adjoining shops, Daulal P.W. 2 has deposed that he is getting monthly rent of similar shops at the rate of Rs. 120/- and Rs. 150/- per shop. Bhanwar Singh P.W. 4 has deposed that the rent of a shop situated on this road. opposite police lines, is Rs. 250 - p. m. The plaintiff Mohanial P.W. 5 has deposed that his two very small shops situated in the same building are in the accupation and tenancy of Jodhpur Municipality on monthly rent of Rs. 40/- each. Devendra Kumar D.W. 1 admits in his cross-examination that eight shops belonging to a Seth of Nasifabad are at a distance of about 200 ft. from the suti shops and the monthly rent of each shop is Rs. 120/-. The defendant witnesses have not denied these prevailing rents in their statements but have simply pleaded their ignorance. They have not stated rents of other shops even. The evidence of the plaintiff produced under Section 6(3) of the Act has gone unrebutted. On the basis of this evidence, the standard rent of the three shops in dispute would have been more than Rs. 262/50. as claimed by the plaintiff. In view difficult to sutain the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District budge No. 1. Jodhpur dated July 9, 1985.
10. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed with costs. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1. Jodhpur dated July 9, 1985 are set aside and the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated December, 23, 1981 are restored.