Dismissed

State through Collector Ajmer v. Nirmal Chand Soni and Others

Rajasthan HC6 Feb 2015CR/115/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition challenging the fixation of provisional rent, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court upheld the lower courts' decision, finding the valuation reasonable and noting the absence of evidence regarding alleged construction expenditures by the tenant.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

State through Collector Ajmer Vs Nirmal Chand Soni and… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR

¶3

SB Civil Revision Petition No.115/ 2011 State of Rajasthan & anr. Vs. Nirmal Chand & ors.

¶4

Judgment reserved on 20/ 01/ 2015 Judgment pronounced on 06/ 02/ 2015

¶5

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE J.K. RANKA

¶6

Mr. Anurag Kalawatia on behalf of Mr. JM Saxena, AAG, counsel for the petitioner Mr. MM Ranjan, Sr. Adv. assisted by

¶7

Mr. Saurabh Bhandari, counsel for the respondents

¶8

Instant revision petition is preferred against the

¶9

concurrent finding of two courts below whereby provisional rent u/s 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 has been fixed @ Rs.25,000/- per month.

¶10

Brief facts, which can be noticed are that the respondent is owner of a property in Ganj, Ajmer where the State of Rajasthan is running a Government School, namely; Government Subhash Secondary School, Outside Delhi Gate, Ajmer.

¶11

It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the property stood let out since 1962 and by a mutual consent, the rent was fixed at Rs.412/- per month in the year 1986. The

¶12

¶13

trial court, without appreciating the evidence and material on record, fixed provisional rent at Rs.25,000/- per month which is abnormal, unheard and without any evidence. The trial court has considered valuation report of an independent valuer who had not based the valuation on the present facts and circumstances and valued the property abnormally high and therefore, reliance could not have been placed on such an independent valuation report by a private valuer. It is further contended that the first floor of the property where the school is being run was constructed by the tenant (State Government) at their own expenditures after seeking permission of the respondent-landlord. Therefore, the value of the amount incurred by the State Government ought to have been deducted by the trial court while considering the provisional rent or fair value of the tenanted property. He relied upon judgment rendered in the case of Lalchand Vs. Rameshwarlal: 2003(2) WLC (Raj.) 170.

¶14

Per-contra, ld. counsel for the respondents

¶15

contended that both the courts below have passed a well reasoned order by appropriately appreciating the material available on record and no interference is warranted under the revisional jurisdiction against the concurrent finding of facts. He further contended that the valuation report is by a

¶16

¶17

Government approved valuer who is a technical person and highly qualified to value the properties. He further contended that though as per the valuation the provisional rent could have been Rs.27,200/- as per the working by the trial court but the trial court has even ignored the same and restricted it to Rs.25,000/- per month as a provisional rent which though is lower but needs no interference. He further contended that no evidence was led by the petitioner about incurring of any expenditure on the first floor or other portion and therefore, the trial court as well as lower appellate court have rightly rejected such a claim of the petitioners. He relied upon judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & anr. Vs. Santosh Bala Mittal (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.440/2002) and Ram Das Vs. Vishnu Das (SB Civil Revision Petition No.1908/1999.

¶18

I have heard ld. counsel for the parties and carefully

¶19

perused the material on record.

¶20

It is an admitted position that the tenanted property is located at Ganj, Outside Delhi Gate, Ajmer which admeasures 1189.30 square yards of land and is at a prominent place in Ajmer. Only because the State Government is the tenant and is running a school, it does not mean that fair

¶21

¶22

rent/provisional rent cannot be claimed by the respondents and there is no reason that the rent could not have been revised on

¶23

an application filed by the respondents. On perusal of the valuation report it goes to show that it has been prepared by one Anil Kumar Lodha, a Registered Engineer, Consultant and Valuer and as per his report dt. 28/11/2002, he has adopted the value of land after seeking the land rates from the SubRegistrar Office, Ajmer and after considering the prevalent DLC rates of the area. He has also considered the valuation of the constructed portion on the basis of the standing order X- 3/1998 and the rates are taken from the BSR of June, 1998, issued from PWD (B&R), Govt. of Rajasthan, City Division, Ajmer for all Ajmer District and therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid, in my view, the valuation cannot be said to be based on no material. As per working by the valuer, the total value of the tenanted portion, both land and constructed area, comes to Rs.43,52,702/- and even as per the valuation officer, the fair rent comes to Rs.3,26,452/- per annum with monthly rent at Rs.27,200 per month by calculating return @ 7.5%. However, the trial court has come to a conclusion that in the light of the facts, found the provisional rent was restricted to Rs.25,000/per month, which, in my view, cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. Needless to mention the petitioner had also an opportunity to get the property valued by independent

¶24

¶25

agency namely; CPWD, PWD or any other technical expert but for the reasons best known, nothing was placed on record by the petitioner nor any objection was raised that the value adopted by the valuation officer is based on no material. Therefore, the trial court was justified in adopting the valuation report of a technical expert placed by the respondents and in my view, the trial court has not erred in any manner in placing reliance on the technical report of a registered valuer. The second issue raised by counsel or the petitioners that substantial amount was incurred by the petitioners in constructing first floor and additional floors also needs to be discarded as despite of opportunities granted by the trial court as well as lower appellate court, not a single evidence was placed as to any amount having been incurred by the State Government. Merely saying that the respondents permitted to raise construction is no reason to come to the conclusion or assumption that the State Government raised construction out of its own sources/funds. Even before this Court, counsel for the petitioners is unable to pin-pointedly say or place any material to come to the conclusion about incurring of any amount by the State Government.

¶26

Both the courts below, after taking note of all these aspects, have fixed provisional rent @ Rs.25,000/- per month

¶27

¶28

which in the opinion of this Court is just and fair. The determination is provisional in nature, which is always subject to determination of standard rent as per Sec. 6 of the Rent

¶29

Control Act.

¶30

The judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioners in the case of Lalchand (supra) does not support the case of the petitioners herein and is distinguishable.

¶31

This Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & anr. Vs. Santosh Bala Mittal (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.440/2002) had an occasion to consider provisional rent on the basis of valuation report placed before the trial court and this Court after examining the valuation report, came to the conclusion that there was no error or illegality in placing reliance on a valuation report of a technical person.

¶32

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in such concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below and the instant revision petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and is

¶33

hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶34

(J.K. Ranka), J.

¶35

Cer t i f i cat e: Al l cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng e- mai l ed. Raghu, Sr . PA.

¶36

Raghu

State through Collector Ajmer v. Nirmal Chand Soni and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State through Collector Ajmer v. Nirmal Chand Soni and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A C T O Ward II Kota Vs M/S Steel Authority of India

A C T O Vs M/S Jatan Construction Pvt. Ltd.

A C T O Vs M/S Gora Mal Hari Ram

M/S Shiv Edibles Ltd. Vs C T O Enti EVASION-1 Kota and Others

Manohar Lal and Anr. Vs Smt Rajveer Kaur Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Meena Vs Chomu Sahakari Kraya Vikraya Ors.