JUDGMENT 1. - The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. J.R. Patel submitted that on account of death of Vishambar Lal on 1.12.2009, his name from the array of respondents-defendants may be deleted and other tenant 1/2 Shiv Kumar S/o Bhikham Chand Bohra is represented by Mr. B.K. Thanvi. Therefore, service is treated as complete and his name be deleted by red-ink. Deletion of name in the cause title may be counter-signed by learned counsel for the respondent. 2. For the reasons given in the interim application being I.A. No. 12999/2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay of 511 days in filing the appeal condoned in view of the reason that the landlord Govind Singh Parihar is residing at England and he could not contact his counsel. 3. Heard on merits of the appeal itself by the consent of learned counsels. 4. The present appeal of the plaintiff-landlord is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 34/2007 (48/2002)- Govind Singh Parihar v. Bhikham Chand Bohra whereby the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for fixation of standard rent at Z 5000/- per month in respect of suit property situated near Railway Station, Jodhpur. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. J.R. Patel submitted that the suit premises in question in which the defendant-tenant was running a restaurant/lodge known as Vishambhar Lodge was initially given on rent at Z 205/- per month in the year 1991, which is now at ? 1100/- per month. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the market rate of rent in the said area viz. just opposite the Railway Station, jodhpur is very high and the plaintiff had claimed fixation of standard rent merely at Z 5000/- under Section 6 f of the Act from the date of filing of suit i.e. 5.7.2002, but even that has been not allowed by the learned trial Court even though there was sufficient evidence. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. B.K. Thanvi, however, opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the rent presently paid as T 1100/- per month is reasonable and does not require any further increase. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. B.K. Thanvi, however, opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the rent presently paid as T 1100/- per month is reasonable and does not require any further increase. In the alternative, he submitted that the increased rent of T 5000/- is not payable from the date of filing of the suit in 2002. However, reasonable rent, which may now be considered appropriate, may be fixed from January, 2013 provided arrears of increased rent are not insisted upon. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff agrees to waive arrears if the increased rent of T 5000/- per month is fixed from January, 2013 onwards with statutorily provided increase of 5% every calendar year. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly agrees to the same. 8. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that looking to the market rate of rent prevalent in the area situated just opposite Railway Station, Jodhpur, which is undisputedly a prime location and value of the property has gone up tremendously, the standard rent claimed by the plaintiff appellant of T 5000/- per month is reasonable and can be directed to be paid by the defendant-tenant from January, 2013 onwards and not from the date of filing of suit in the year 2002 with statutorily prescribed increase of 5% every year during the period of tenancy. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal of the plaintiff-landlord is disposed of and the respondent-defendant is directed to pay Z 5000/- per month commencing from January, 2013 before the of next month with 5% increase every year from 2014 onwards during t period of tenancy. The arrears of rent at this increased rate will not be,pay e by the tenant. No order as to costs.Appeal disposed of. *******