Kailash Chandra vs Mukesh Kumar

Farjand Ali, J

The present Civil Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant–defendant–tenant assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Bhilwara, in Civil Appeal No. 25/2022, whereby the first appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Senior Civil Judge No. 2, Bhilwara, in Civil Original Case No. 612/2014, came to be affirmed.

In brief, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondents–plaintiffs instituted a civil suit seeking fixation of standard rent in respect of two shops situated at Chandrashekhar Azad Market, Bhopalganj, Bhilwara. The suit premises were let out to the appellant–tenant about thirty-five years ago at a nominal monthly rent of ₹64/-. It is undisputed that the said rent has continued unchanged for more than three decades.

2.1.   The appellant has, therefore, preferred the present Second Appeal challenging the concurrent findings of both the courts below, which determined and affirmed the standard rent at ₹7,000/- per month, effective from the year 2002.

Learned counsel for the appellant–defendant, on the other hand, submitted that the shops are situated within a predominantly residential precinct and not in a commercially thriving zone as alleged. It was further urged that the premises are in a dilapidated condition, lacking basic amenities such as electricity and water supply, which considerably depreciates their rental worth. The appellant contended that the enhanced rent sought by the respondents is arbitrary and unfounded, unsupported by any credible or independent valuation report. It was also emphasized that the respondents failed to produce rent receipts, comparative rental agreements, or the testimony of any witness from similarly situated properties to substantiate their claim regarding market rent.

3.1 In addition to the above, the appellant raised certain procedural infirmities, alleging non-compliance with the statutory provisions relating to payment of the appropriate court fees under the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. It was further contended that the courts below overlooked relevant evidence, particularly the comparatively lower rents of neighboring shops, and consequently failed to make a balanced assessment of the facts. According to the appellant, both courts misapplied and misconstrued Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which lay down the parameters for fixation of standard rent. On these premises, it was prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees be quashed and set aside.

Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents–plaintiffs vehemently contended that the suit premises are situated in a well-established and rapidly developing commercial locality which, over the past two decades, has undergone a transformative escalation in both property valuations and rental potential. It was urged that the token rent of ₹64/- per month, determined nearly three and a half decades ago, has long since ceased to bear any reasonable correlation to prevailing market realities. The respondents emphasized that the entire Chandrashekhar Azad Market and its adjoining areas, including the prominent Apsara Complex, have evolved into a vibrant commercial hub, housing a wide array of retail establishments, showrooms, and business enterprises.

4.1.   In substantiation of their plea, the respondents drew the Court’s attention to the comparative rental evidence of similarly situated shops in the Apsara Complex, where rents are stated to command several thousands of rupees per month, reflecting the appreciation in the area’s commercial stature. It was thus contended that fixation of the standard rent at ₹7,000/- per month would constitute a just, equitable, and realistic determination, commensurate with the property’s location, usage, and market conditions.

4.2. The respondents further placed reliance upon Section 6(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, submitting that the statutory framework expressly empowers the Court to determine the standard rent by considering the situation, condition, nature of construction, availability of amenities, and the prevailing market rate of accommodation. It was argued that both the trial court and the first appellate court have exercised this discretion judiciously and within the bounds of statutory authority, upon due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record. The fixation of rent at ₹7,000/- per month, it was submitted, is neither arbitrary nor excessive, but rather a reasoned and proportionate assessment reflective of contemporary economic conditions.

4.3.   The respondents, therefore, urged that the findings of the courts below are well-reasoned, evidence-based, and immune from appellate interference, contending that the appellant’s objections are conjectural, devoid of empirical foundation, and insufficient to unsettle the concurrent determinations rendered by the subordinate courts.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments as well as the material available on record.

The learned trial court, upon framing the requisite issues and undertaking a comprehensive appreciation of the evidence, determined the standard rent of the suit premises at ₹7,000/- per month, operative from the year 2002. While noting the absence of an independent valuation report, the Court found that the commercial character of the locality, prevailing market indicators, and general escalation in property values collectively justified such fixation. The first appellate court, on an exhaustive reappraisal of the record, affirmed these findings, holding that the determination of standard rent was based on a sound and reasoned appreciation of the evidence, and that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Having heard learned counsel for both sides at length and upon meticulous examination of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and the impugned judgments, this Court finds that the controversy is fully covered by concurrent findings of fact rendered by both courts below. The salient aspects emanating from the record may be succinctly summarised as follows—

a)  The appellant has been paying a nominal rent of ₹64/- per month for nearly thirty-five years, a rate wholly disproportionate to prevailing market realities in what has since evolved into a thriving commercial zone.

b)  The respondents have adduced credible and convincing evidence establishing the commercial transformation of the area and a marked appreciation in rental values.

c)  Though an independent valuation report was not produced, the courts below rightly relied upon comparative market indicators, the commercial nature of the locality, and prevailing economic conditions to arrive at a just and reasonable determination.

d)  The application of Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was undertaken within the legitimate bounds of judicial discretion.

e)  The appellant’s objections regarding the structural condition, absence of amenities, or alleged procedural deficiencies such as court fee were duly examined and found insufficient to disturb the rent fixation.

f)  The findings recorded by both courts are well-reasoned, supported by evidence, and free from perversity or arbitrariness, thereby warranting no interference in the limited scope of second appellate jurisdiction.

It is a settled proposition of law that a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable only when a substantial question of law arises. The expression “substantial question of law” must be understood in contradistinction to mere questions of fact or settled legal principles. A Second Appeal is not a forum for reappreciation of evidence or for substituting one plausible view of facts for another. This Court does not function as a first appellate authority, and unless the concurrent findings of the courts below are manifestly perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to the record, interference is impermissible. No such perversity or legal infirmity is demonstrated in the present case.

Upon a cumulative consideration of the material on record and the concurrent findings rendered by the learned courts below, this Court finds that the fixation of standard rent at ₹7,000/- per month, effective from the year 2002, is justified, reasonable, and legally sound. The conclusions reached are amply supported by evidence and in consonance with the statutory framework. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for adjudication, and the findings call for no interference by this Court.

Resultantly, the Civil Second Appeal stands dismissed in limine, being devoid of merit and lacking any substantial question of law.

No order as to costs.