In a civil revision petition, the High Court of Rajasthan rejected arguments challenging the fixation of standard rent at Rs.1200 per month. The court held that lower courts correctly considered adjacent shop rents and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JP:34689]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 23/2007
Kanhaiyalal S/o Gopal Lal, R/o Chokri Hawali Sahar Near Garbi Samshan Danda, And Shopkeeper Shop No.11, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur Plot No B17, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Meetraj W/o Sardar Inderjeet Singh, R/o Plot No. 433, Raja Park, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney Holder Kartar Singh
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhi Goyal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 17/11/2023
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) against the judgment & decree dated 12.01.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur (for short ‘learned appellate court’) in Civil Regular Appeal No.15/2006 (55/04), whereby the appeal filed by the defendant has been dismissed and the judgment & decree dated 22.01.2004 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur City (East), Jaipur (for short ‘learned trial court’) in Civil Suit No.300/1997, decreeing the respondent-plaintiff’s (for short ‘the plaintiff) suit for determination of standard rent, has been affirmed.
Learned counsel for the defendant submits that plaintiff had filed a suit for determination of standard rent against the
[2023:RJ-JP:34689]
[CR-23/2007]
(2 of 4)
defendant. Trial court vide judgment dated 22.01.2004 wrongly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and determined the standard rent at Rs.1200/- per month from future date i.e. 01.02.2004. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the defendant had filed an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 22.01.2004 but appellate court had also committed serious error in dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant vide judgment dated 12.01.2007. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that earlier on the basis of compromise between the parties, the trial court had determined the standard rent as Rs.70/- per month, so, there was no occasion for the lower court to determine the standard rent again in the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the plaintiff was not entitled to file the subsequent suit for determination of standard rent. So, judgments of the trial court as well as appellate court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the trial court had considered the evidence of DW1-Kartar Singh who is power of attorney holder of plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that power of attorney holder was incompetent to depose and give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the trial court had committed serious error in fixing the standard rent of suit shop at Rs.1200/- per month because as per evidence led by the defendant, adjacent shop are on rent of Rs.200/- per month. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that condition of the disputed shop is very dilapidated. No repair was got done by
(3 of 4) [CR-23/2007]
[2023:RJ-JP:34689]
the plaintiff. So, judgments of the trial court as well as appellate court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Matalpudi Janardana Rao Vs. Yanduri Venkata Subba & Anr. reported in AIR 1952 Madras 855 ; (2) Bal Kishan & Anr. Vs. Gopi Chand & Anr. reported in AIR 1963 Punjab 163 ; (3) Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2005) 2 SCC 217 ; (4) Nand Kishore Vs. Des Raj Chopra & Anr. in Civil Revision No.887/1968 decided on 23.09.1969 ; (5) Popatlal Ratansey Vs. Kalidas Bhavan reported in AIR 1958 Bombay 1 ; (6) Shri Shikar Chand Jain Vs. Shri Ravindra Kumar in S.A.O. No.90D of 1963 decided on 20.09.1969 and (7) Autar Signh Vs. Sohan Lal reported in AIR 1970 Jammu & Kashmir 26 .
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the trial court as well as appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that disputed premises can fetch the rent of Rs.1200/per month. So, revision petition be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rattan Arya Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1986 AIR SC 1444 .
It is an admitted position that the plaintiff had filed a suit for determination of standard rent of disputed premises and trial court vide judgment dated 22.01.2004 fixed the standard rent of disputed premises as Rs.1200/- per month from 01.02.2004. While determining the standard rent, trial court considered the evidence led by the parties. Thereafter, the defendant had filed an
[2023:RJ-JP:34689]
[CR-23/2007]
(4 of 4)
appeal against the impugned judgment. The appellate court also dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. Trial court while determining the standard rent, considered the rent of adjacent shop of disputed premises. So, in my considered opinion, trial court as well as appellate court had not committed any error in determining the standard rent of disputed premises at Rs.1200/per month from 01.02.2004. So, present revision petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /06
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in determining the standard rent at Rs.1200 per month.
Whether a tenant can file a fresh suit for determination of standard rent after a compromise on rent amount.
Whether a power of attorney holder is incompetent to depose as a witness.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Matalpudi Janardana Rao Vs. Yanduri Venkata Subba & Anr.Referred¶23
Matalpudi Janardana Rao Vs. Yanduri Venkata Subba & Anr. reported in AIR 1952 Madras 855 · Who else cites this
Bal Kishan & Anr. Vs. Gopi Chand & Anr.Referred¶23
Bal Kishan & Anr. Vs. Gopi Chand & Anr. reported in AIR 1963 Punjab 163 · Who else cites this
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors.Referred¶23
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2005) 2 SCC 217 · Who else cites this
Nand Kishore Vs. Des Raj Chopra & Anr.Referred¶23
Nand Kishore Vs. Des Raj Chopra & Anr. in Civil Revision No.887/1968 decided on 23.09.1969
Popatlal Ratansey Vs. Kalidas BhavanReferred¶23
Popatlal Ratansey Vs. Kalidas Bhavan reported in AIR 1958 Bombay 1 · Who else cites this
Shri Shikar Chand Jain Vs. Shri Ravindra KumarReferred¶23
Shri Shikar Chand Jain Vs. Shri Ravindra Kumar in S.A.O. No.90D of 1963 decided on 20.09.1969
Autar Signh Vs. Sohan LalReferred¶23
Autar Signh Vs. Sohan Lal reported in AIR 1970 Jammu & Kashmir 26 · Who else cites this
Rattan Arya Vs. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶25
Rattan Arya Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1986 AIR SC 1444 · Who else cites this
Kanhaiyalal S/o Gopal Lal
Smt. Meetraj W/o Sardar Inderjeet Singh
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
