Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 674 (RAJ)

Bhopal Singh v. Precious Properties Pvt. Ltd.

2014-03-10

NISHA GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act of 1950) has been filed against the judgment and decree 25.5.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 16/2002 whereby the suit for fixation of standard rent has been decreed under Section 6 and Rs. 4,000/- has been determined as standard rent. 2. The short facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are that respondent plaintiff has instituted a suit under Section 6 of the Act of 1950 for fixation of standard rent. The averment in the plaint were that the tenant was paying monthly rent of Rs. 85/-. The respondent purchased the property. The property is situated in prime place of Jaipur in Johari Bazar and it can fetch rent of Rs. 11,500/- per month, hence suit for fixation of standard rent has been filed by the land lord. The appellant has not disputed the tenancy and it was also admitted that he was paying Rs. 85/- per month but the contention of the appellant was that suit premises is in first floor and it is not situated in Johari Bazar but its access is through Ramjilala Ka Rasta. The property could not fetch rent of Rs. 11,500/- and the appellant is paying fair rent. On the contentions of the parties, issues have been framed as under: " 1- vk;k fookfnr lEifRr dk fdjk;k orZeku esa 85@& :i;s izfrekg gS] tks cgqr de ;kfu too low gS\ ----- oknh 2- vk;k oknh fooknxzLr lEifRr dk ekud fdjk;k orZeku egaxkbZ o vMkSl iMkSl o vU; ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, 11500@& :i;s izfrekg djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ------ oknh 3- vk;k U;k;ky; gktk dks nkok lquus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS\ ----- izfroknh 4- vk;k okni= lh0ih0lh ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ugha gSa] vr% nkok [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ ---- izfroknh 5- vuqrks"k " The plaintiff respondent examined PW/1 Rajendra Agarwal, PW/2 R.B. Shah and relied upon documents Ex. 1 to 3. The appellant defendant has examined himself as-DW/1 and after conclusion of the trial, Rs. 4,000/- has been determined as standard rent, hence this appeal. 3. 1 to 3. The appellant defendant has examined himself as-DW/1 and after conclusion of the trial, Rs. 4,000/- has been determined as standard rent, hence this appeal. 3. The contention of the appellant is that under Section 6 sub-clause (3) of the Act of 1950, the court below has not considered the prevailing rent of the same locality, nothing has been placed on record by the respondent that what is the prevailing rent of adjacent properties. Specific mention has been made as regards the other property adjacent to the disputed property that Ratnalay Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai is the tenant of adjacent property but no documentary evidence has been produced, hence an adverse inference be drawn against the respondent the court below has not considered the guiding factors enumerated in Section 6 sub-clause (3) and without any basis Rs. 4,000/- has been fixed as standard rent arbitrarily. His further contention is that now new Act of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short the New Act, 2001) has came into force on 1.4.2003 and as per Section 6 of the New Act, 2001 the standard rent should be determined as there is significant disparities between the calculation of rent under Section 6 of New Act, 2001 and Section 6(3) of the Act of 1950 and the law does not provide for such anomalies. The court below has also erred in ordering the standard rent from the date of suit without assigning any reason, the appellant is paying regularly the rent determined under Section 7 of the Act of 1950. Section 6(3) of Act of 1950 does not recognise the market value of the property but only the cost of construction is the relevant consideration to assess the standard rent but the court below has wrongly assessed the standard rent on the basis of market value. The further contention of the appellant is that the court below has assessed the standard rent only on surmises and conjunctures. Initially, the Court was of the opinion that 5,000/- should be the standard rent but order has been passed for Rs. 4,000/-. The further contention of the appellant is that the court below has assessed the standard rent only on surmises and conjunctures. Initially, the Court was of the opinion that 5,000/- should be the standard rent but order has been passed for Rs. 4,000/-. Valuation report has wrongly been relied upon, in valuation report, the size of the premises has been written wrongly, hence whole basis of the report is faulty.Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that the court below has considered the rival contentions of the parties and after considering the location, use and size of the property, the standard rent has rightly been assessed, valuation report is not the basis of the order but guidelines have been taken from the valuation report which is permitted under the law, no strict arithmetic formulae can be evolved under Section 6 sub-clause (3) of the Act, map of the property is attached to the valuation report which is not in dispute. the market value of the property is also a relevant consideration under Section 6(3) of the Act of 1950, valuation report gives basis and guideline to arrive at a fair rent. The court below has not assessed any magic figure but on the consideration of the evidence standard rent has been rightly determined. The conscious reading of the order goes to show that the respondent is claiming standard rent from the date of suit, he is not getting adequate and reasonable amount, hence the court below was right in making the order effective from the date of filing of the suit and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and decree under appeal as well as the original record of the case. 5. The first contention of the appellant is that rent should be determined as per Section 6 of the Act of 2001 but this argument of the appellant has no force as the law is settled on the point as held in Bhag Chand v. Additional District Judge No.5, Kota & ors., AIR 2009 Raj. 5. The first contention of the appellant is that rent should be determined as per Section 6 of the Act of 2001 but this argument of the appellant has no force as the law is settled on the point as held in Bhag Chand v. Additional District Judge No.5, Kota & ors., AIR 2009 Raj. 178 wherein it has been held that application of proceedings for fixation of standard rent pending under Section 6 and 7 of the Old Act would be governed by Old Act of 1950 and not by New Act of 2001 and Section 32 of the Act is also implicit in this field, hence the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted and Section 6 of the New Act has no role for determination of standard rent in the present suit property. Further reliance has been placed on Kashi Ram & ors. v. Shikhar Chand & Anr., ILR 1959 Raj. 528 where general principles as regards the determination of standard rent has been explained and it has been made clear that petitioner should mention the facts and circumstances on the basis of which the court can proceed under Section 6 sub-clause (3) of the Act. It is not in dispute that earlier Section 6 sub-clause (2) was applicable but it has been declared ultra vires. Thereafter as per Section 6(3) of the Act of 1950, the standard rent has to be assessed. There is no dispute about the law propounded in Kashi Ram (supra), but now the only option with the court below was to determine the rent under Section 6(3) of the Act of 1950. 6. The other contention of the appellant is that 5 considerations are relevant to determine the standard rent under Section 6(3) of the Act of 1950 which has not been considered. The court below has assessed the rent only on the basis of valuation report which is also faulty and the valuation report should not be relied upon as the size of the property has not been rightly written in the report. It is true that as per map Ex.3, the size of the property is 19x15 feet whereas in valuation report, the size has been mentioned as 21.4.x 20 feet. It is true that as per map Ex.3, the size of the property is 19x15 feet whereas in valuation report, the size has been mentioned as 21.4.x 20 feet. It is true that there is some discrepancies in the report as to the size of the property but valuation report is not the only basis for determination of standard rent. The court below has considered the valuation report as regards to the fact that property is situated in Johari Bajar and what is the market value of the property. The court below has also considered the rival contentions. The respondent has also proved the fact that opening of the property is in Johari Bazar which is the prime business center. PW/2 R.B. Shah has assessed the market value of the property. It is true that only on the basis of market value, the rent could not be assessed but it can be a basis for the assessment which has been held in Bhag Chand (supra) where other relevant consideration has been explained and it has been held: "Hence, the words 'other relevant consideration' would mean other factors which throw light on the issue of standard/provisional rent. Such relevant consideration could be the report of a valuer, or the rate of the land fixed by the District Level Committee (the DLC rates, for short)." 7. Hence the report of the valuation and District Level Committee reports are also relevant consideration for assessment of standard rent. Further reliance has been placed on M/s Gopi Chand Sardar Mal & Sons v. Dilip Kumar, WLC (Raj.) 2007 (2) 272 where also it has been held that on the basis of valuation report, rent could be determined. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that market value and cost of constructions are two different factors and reliance has been placed on Dr. K.C. Nambiar v. Rent Controller, Madra & ors., 1969(2) SCC 465 . There is no dispute about that fact that market value and cost of construction are two different mathematics but market value and valuation report could also be relevant consideration for assessing the standard rent and reliance could be placed on V.S. Kanodia etc. v. A.L. Muthu (D) through LRs & Anr., 2012 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 249. There is no dispute about that fact that market value and cost of construction are two different mathematics but market value and valuation report could also be relevant consideration for assessing the standard rent and reliance could be placed on V.S. Kanodia etc. v. A.L. Muthu (D) through LRs & Anr., 2012 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 249. The contention of the respondent is that there is a great disparity between the reasonable expectation of the land lord and actual rent which has been paid. If the tenant agrees to pay the prevalent market rate of the land, the number of case would not reach to the court and the court below has assessed the rent after giving due consideration to the material on record and a fair and reasonable rent has been assessed and reliance has been placed on Mohammad Ahmad & Anr. v. Atma Ram Chauhan & ors., WLC (SC) Civil 2011 (2) 336 wherein it has been held: "One half of the lis between landlord and tenant would not reach courts, if tenant agrees to pay the present prevalent market rate of rent of the tenanted premises to the landlord. In that case landlord would also be satisfied that he is getting adequate, just and proper return on the property. But the trend in the litigation between landlord and tenant shows otherwise. Tenant is happy in paying the meagre amount of rent fixed years ago and landlord continues to find out various grounds under the Rent Acts, to evict him some how or the other. This case appears to be another classic example of the aforesaid scenario." 9. The contention of the respondent is that Court can take judicial notice of the fact that there is many fold increase in the rate of value of the property and reliance has been placed on Rattan Arya etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., AIR 1986 SC 1444 . Hence in the circumstances narrated above, looking to the fact that the property is situated in prime business locality of Jaipur and after considering the valuation report and other circumstances, standard rent has been assessed and no fault can be found in the findings. 10. The other contention of the appellant is that standard rent has been ordered to be paid from the date of order for which no reasons have been recorded. 10. The other contention of the appellant is that standard rent has been ordered to be paid from the date of order for which no reasons have been recorded. It is not in dispute that law does not provide that any reason has to be recorded but the contention of the appellant is that judicial order should always be reasoned one and if law does not provide so, still it is implicit that order should be reasoned one. There is no dispute about this legal proposition but here in the present case, the conscious reading of the order makes it implicit and it could be gathered from the order that the respondent is claiming standard rent from the date of suit. The court has assessed that the rent paid is very low after taking into consideration the relevant factors of the matter, hence the court below was justified in ordering the standard rent to be paid from the date of the order as respondent was not getting the reasonable and fair rent of the property hence looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances, no interference is needed. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******