Kanhaiya Lal vs Smt Meetraj
2023 Latest Caselaw 6543 Raj/2

[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] (2 of 4) [CR-23/2007]

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

[2023:RJ-JP:34689] (3 of 4) [CR-23/2007]

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.90-

D 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] (4 of 4) [CR-23/2007]

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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)