BHARGAVA, J—This is plaintiffs first appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, for fixation of standard rent. 2. Plaintiff-appellants filed a suit u/s 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act), with the allegation that the appellant No. 1 took on rent the suit premises a house constructed on Plot No. B-94A, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur, on an agreed rent of Rs. 1250/- per month, for residence, w.e.f. 1.12.1972. Thereafter, rent was increased from 13.12.1974 to Rs. 1400/-. The plaintiff No. 1 further mentioned in the plaint that this house was constructed after 1965 and was given on rent for the first time, to M/s. Hindustan Salts Limited, at the rate of Rs. 850/- per month. Therefore, its basic rent is Rs. 850/- per month and hence, standard rent could also not be more than Rs. 850/- per month. The plaintiff requested the defendants to decrease the rent but they avoided and therefore, the plaintiffs prayed that a sum of Rs. 850/- per month may be fixed as the standard rent for the suit premises. 3. In the written statement, the defendants have admitted that the suit house was given on rent to Hindustan Salts Limited at the rate of Rs. 850/- per month from 13.12.1969 to 30.11.1972. The plaintiffs, before taking the suit premises on rent, had asked the defendants to construct an underground and over head tank and get the booster pump and motor fitted and also some wooden work to be done which cost him nearly Rs. 1000/-. Therefore, the plaintiffs agreed to take the suit property on a rent of Rs. 1250/- per month and since the defendants had made additions and alterations and had increased the facilities and amenities as also made improvement, the standard rent could not be the same as the basic rent. The defendants further submitted that the suit was filed because the defendants terminated the tenancy of the plaintiffs and had asked them to vacate the suit premises by 30.4.1967, therefore, the present suit was filed on the last date of the tenancy. 4. The defendants further submitted that the suit was filed because the defendants terminated the tenancy of the plaintiffs and had asked them to vacate the suit premises by 30.4.1967, therefore, the present suit was filed on the last date of the tenancy. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1- D;k 10]000@& :- izfroknh us edku dh ejEer vkfn esa yxk;sA ;fn gk¡ rks bldk D;k vlj gSA 2- D;k edku dk r; kqnk fdjk;k vf/kd gS ;fn gk¡ rks izekf.kd fdjk;k D;k fu;r fd;k tkuk pkfg;s\ 3- vuqrks"k 5. The plaintiff No. I himself examined as PW-1 in support of his allegations made in the plaint. In his statement, he admitted that when he came to know that there is some water problem, he had asked the defendants and they had agreed to get underground tank and over head tank constructed and also provide booster with motor. He of course denied that wood panelling was done by the defendants but he asserted that it was got done by him and invested a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. He admitted that the accomodation in the adjoining house belonging to Shri Yatindra Singh, which was on rent, is almost the same, except he has got a small lawn in front. He did not know that its rent was Rs. 1400/- per month. Similarly, he denied having any knowledge that Raghu Sinha was occupying a similar house nearby at the rate of Rs. 1500/- or that the house of Mohan Mukherjee was on a rent of Rs. 1500/- per month. PW-2 Ramesh Chand Dixit was also examined who had supervised the wood panelling work got done by the plaintiff in the suit house. 6. The defendants examined Satya Prakash as DW-1 who also supported his assertions in the written statement and also proved that the adjoining houses were let out between Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 2,000/-. The defendants also got examined Yatindra Singh as DW-2 who has proved that his house adjoining the suit house was on rent for a sum of Rs. 1600/-. The defendants also got examined DW-3 Shyam Singh Goyal, Proprietor of Jaipur Auction House who deals in properties. He proved that the plaintiffs had agreed to pay Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 2,000/-. The defendants also got examined Yatindra Singh as DW-2 who has proved that his house adjoining the suit house was on rent for a sum of Rs. 1600/-. The defendants also got examined DW-3 Shyam Singh Goyal, Proprietor of Jaipur Auction House who deals in properties. He proved that the plaintiffs had agreed to pay Rs. 1250/- as rent which is the reasonable rent DW-4 Prem Khanna and DW-5 Bhanwar Lal have been Examined to prove the expenses incurred by the defendants. 7. Learned trial court on the basis of the evidence, adduced by the parties, held that the defendants had been able to prove only that they spent Rs. 4500/-on the suit property for additions and alterations and that the agreed rent of Rs. 1400/- is reasonable and not excessive and therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The Plaintiffs have filed the present appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree. 8. At the very outset, it may be noted that the suit premises have been vacated by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellants has very vehemently submitted that since the suit properties were constructed after 1965 and was given on rent, for the first time, at the rate of Rs. 850/- so, that was the basic rent and therefore, it should also be the standard rent of the suit premises and in this connection has placed reliance on Shambhu Ram V. Kanhya Lal (1), Central Bank of India V. Govind Narain(2) and Jayanti Lal Keshavlal Patel V. Devshi Chakubhai(3). 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the defendants had made certain additions and alterations and increased the facilities and amenities, the basic rent could not be the standard rent of the suit premises. Moreover, the suit was not filed bona-fide. It was filed only after the plaintiffs, tenancy had been terminated and they were asked to vacate the premises by 30.4.1977, that the suit was filed on the last date of the tenancy. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Jagdish Prasad V. Kapoor Chand(4) wherein the contention that mere cliam by the landlord or the tenant that rent of a particular premises is low or excessive, invest the court with jurisdiction based on literal meaning of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 6, was not accepted. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Jagdish Prasad V. Kapoor Chand(4) wherein the contention that mere cliam by the landlord or the tenant that rent of a particular premises is low or excessive, invest the court with jurisdiction based on literal meaning of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 6, was not accepted. 10. He also placed reliance on Miran Devi V. Birbal Dass(5). 11. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellants brought to my notice that the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra) has been over ruled by a division bench in Jamnadass V. Gokuldass(6) wherein it has been held that the amendments introduced in Sec. 6 have no retrospective effect. 12. I have given my thoughful consideration to the whole matter. 13. Sec. 3(vi) of the Rent Control Act defines Standard rent as under:- "Standard rent used in relation to any premises, means the rent therefore determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act." 14. Sec. 5 of the Rent Control Act provides as under :- "Sec. 5-Rent to be as agreed -The rent payable for any premises situated within the areas 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." 15. Sec. 8 of the Rent Control Act provides that a tenant is not liable to pay in excess of standard rent determined by the court, whereas sec. 10 provides as to when standard rent can be increased and Sec. 11 provides the procedure for increase in rent or standard rent. 16. Coming to Sec. 6, sub clause (1) whereof reads as under :- "Where no rent has been agreed upon or where for any reason the rent agreed upon is claimed to be low or excessive, the landlord or the tenant may institute a suit in the lowest court of competent jurisdiction for fixation of standard rent for any premises." It gives right to both the landlord or the tenant, to institute a suit for fixation of standard rent for any premises, if they find that the agreed rent is low or excessive. Sub sec. (2) of Sec. 6 of the Rent Control Act incorporates the principles on which the standard rent for such premises can be determined after holding such summary enquiry as may be considered just and necessary. Sub sec. (2) of Sec. 6 of the Rent Control Act incorporates the principles on which the standard rent for such premises can be determined after holding such summary enquiry as may be considered just and necessary. It provides that where the premises have been first let after the first day of January, 1965, the standard rent shall not exceed the basic rent thereof. Explanation attached to Sec. 6 provides that the basic rent of any premises shall mean the rent on which the premises were let out on the first day of January, 1962 and if not let on that day, the rent at which they were first let after that day. 17. Therefore, in the present case, it cannot be disputed that the basic rent of the premises was Rs. 850/- because the constructions had been completed after 1962 and it was first let in 1969. In the present case, we cannot loose sight of the fact that the present suit had been filed on 30.4.1977 i.e. on the last day of the tenancy of the appellants, which only casts cloud on the bonafide of the tenant, in filing the suit, more so when the plaintiffs were going to vacate the suit premises. Moreover, in the present case, it has come in evidence that the tenant- appellants had themselves agreed for a sum of Rs. 1250/- as rent because the defendants had agreed to provide for underground tank, over-head tank and booster pump with motor, which obviously increased the facilities and amenities of the existing house and the premises had changed. The premises which were let out in 1969 for a sum of Rs. 850/- were different than the one which were taken on rent by the plaintiffs on agreed rent of Rs. 1250/-. It is also admitted that the plaintiffs themselves had agreed for increase in rent to Rs. 1400/- and later on turned back and filed the suit after receiving the notice of eviction, speaks volumes about the bonafides of the tenant to file the suit. Since the nature of the premises have changed, therefore, the basic rent cannot be the standard rent of the changed premises. Moreover, in the present case, the defendants had also led evidence to prove that the agreed rent was quite reasonable, by leading evidence of the nearby similar premises which were on similar rent. Since the nature of the premises have changed, therefore, the basic rent cannot be the standard rent of the changed premises. Moreover, in the present case, the defendants had also led evidence to prove that the agreed rent was quite reasonable, by leading evidence of the nearby similar premises which were on similar rent. I think therefore, the learned trial court was quite right and justified in holding that the agreed rent cannot be said to be excessive and no case was made out for fixation of standard rent u/s 6 of the Rent Control Act. 18. In the result, I do not find any force in this appeal. This appeal is therefore, dismissed with costs.