S.K. Mal Lodha, J.
1. This is a revision application by the landlord-defendant against the judgment and decree dated August 26, 1976 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur by which he reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif City, Jodhpur on December 19, 1973 in a suit for fixation of standard rent.
2. The plaintiff is the tenant and the defendant is the landlord. The case of the plaintiff was that he is tenant of a shop situate in the main market Sardarpura Road No. 1st B, Jodhpur which was constructed by Bhikamchand Khatri in 1943 & was let by him to one Sindhi Vaidraj (Vishanddas Sindhi). Bhikamchand Khatri sold his house, including the shop, to one Sukhlal and his sons and who let it out to the plaintiff on March 1, 1954 on monthly rent of Rs. 10/- Rs. 2.00 p m as electric charges. Sukhlal and his sons sold the house including the shop in suit to the petitioner in June 1960 and thus, the plaintiff became his tenant. It is said by the plaintiff that after the purchase, the defendant increased the rent from time to time & with effect from November 1, 1968, he has been paying the rent @ Rs. 20/- per month which continued till the suit was instituted that is March 29, 1971. In para 16 of the plaint, it was stated that the basic rent of the shop in question was Rs. 8.00 per month and, therefore, the recovery of rent by the plaintiff @ Rs. 20/- per month is against law. He, therefore, prayed that standard rent of the shop may be fixed at Rs. 8 00 per month or at such rate as the court may deem fit. The defendant-landlord contested the suit on various grounds. According to him, the rent which the plaintiff has been paying @ Rs. 20/- per month is reasonable in as much as the prevailing rent of a like shop in the vicinity is rot less than Rs. 100/-. The trial court framed three issues which, when translated into English, read as under:
1. What is the basic rent of the shop in suit ?
2. What is the standard rent of the shop in suit ?
After trial, the learned Munsif vide his judgment dated December 19, 1973, fixed the standard rent at Rs. 20/- per month payable from March 29, 1971 and left the parties to bear their own costs The tenant was not satisfied and, therefore, he preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District * Judge, by his judgment dated August 26, 1976. allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated December 19, 1973 of the learned Munsif As a result of this, he decreed the plaintiff's suit against the defend- ant with a direction that the standard rent payable by him to the defendant shall be at Rs. 10/- per month exclusive of electric charges and that this order would be effective from March 29, 1971, the dated of the institution of the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the appellate judgment and decree, the defendant has referred this revision application.
3. I have heard Mr. S.G. Bhandati for the petitioner and Mr. N M. Singhvi for the non petitioner.
4. It may be stated that in support of the plaint, the plaintiff examined PW 1 Sukhlal, PW 2 Champalal, PW 3 Bhikamchand Khatri and himself as PW4 & documents Ex.1 to Ex 3 were got proved. The defendant had not lead any evidence in rebuttal. The learned Munsif, on an appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the first tenant of the shop in suit was Vishandass Sindhi and that the rent was Rs. 7/-(sic)-8/- per month and therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 he fixed the standard rent two and a half times the basic rent i.e. Rs. 20/- per month.
5. The learned Additional District Judge, in para 16 of the judgment, observed as under.-
The bare bald self serving word from mouth of Ramlal plaintiff interested as it is in the absence of corroboration in the above narrated background is unacceptable.
The learned Additional District Judge further observed as under in para 27 of his judgment,
In this case the premises it is common ground were rented out or let after the first day of Jan. '46 some where on l-3-54 and when that is so the basic rent will be that rent on which the premises were rented out for the first time on 1-3-54 and this will be the standard rent.
According to the learned Additional District Judge, the plaint was ill-drafted and there was some amount of confusion at two places and, therefore, while coming to the conclusion that it was let some where on 1354, the learned Additional District Judge emphasised the fact that it has been made out that the suit premises were let out at any time after first day of January 1946. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge is contrary to the allegations made in the plaint and the statement of the plaintiff as PW 4. It was clearly averted that the shop in suit was constructed in 1943 by Bhikamchand Khatri PW 3 and given on rent to one Sindhi Vaidraj The plaintiff was the second tenant of the successor in title of Bhikam Chand Khatri from March 1, 1954 on a monthly rent of Rs, 10 00 per month, PW 3 Bhikamchand had admitted that the shop in suit was on rent but he could not say whether it was on rent with one Vishandass Sindhi Vaidya as he does not remember the name. He has also admitted that the rent of the shop was Rs. 7/- -8/- per month and that it was sold to Sukhlal PW 1. PW 1 Sukhlal has deposed that he sold the house to the defendant, inclusive of the shop and that the plaintiff was the tenant of one of the shops. PW 2 Champalal is the rent collector of PW 3 Sukhlal. He has proved certain receipts which he passed to the tenants. Thus from the statement of PW 3 Bhikamchand, original owner of the shop, it is clearly established that the shop in suit was on rent with someone but he did not remember the name of Vishandass Sindhi. PW 4 Ramlal plaintiff in his statement has admitted that during the ownership of PW 3 Bhikamchand, the shop in suit was on rent with Vishandass Sindhi Vaidya and Vishandass used to pay Rs. 7 00 per month as rent In cross-examination, he admitted that Vishandass Sindhi was tenant of PW 9. Sukhlal, successor in interest of the original owner (landlord) PW 3 Bhikhamchand. He has also stated that after getting the shop vacated from Vishandass, the rent Collector of PW 3 Bhikamchand gave the shop in suit to him on rent. From what has been stated above, it will be seen that from statement of the plaintiff it is clear that the first tenant of the shop in suit was Sindhi Vaidyaraj (Vishandass Sindhi) during the ownership of PW 3 Bhikamchand and that the plaintiff became second tenant after the purchase by PW 1 Sukhlal. There is an admission in the plaint in para 6 that the basic rent of the shop was Rs. 8 00 per month The learned Munsif, on the basis of the plaint averments, rightly reached the conclusion that the basic rent of the shop was Rs. 8 00 There is nothing on the record to show that the shop in suit was first let out after the first date of January 1946 because in that case, the standard rent could not exceed the basic rent, I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner that the learned Additional District Judge, after scrutinizing the respective averments made in the pleadings of the parties and the statement of PW 4 Ramlal, reached a correct conclusion that the shop in suit was first Jet out to the plaintiff on a monthly rent @ Rs. 10/-per month on March 1, 1954 and, therefore, this would be the standard rent and that this conclusion was based on the appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence and that this Court should not interfere with the appellate order under Section 115, CPC.
6. The matter does not rest at that. In the statement of the tenant as PW 4, he has made certain admissions It was not open to the appellate court to make out a case for the plaintiff which was not disclosed in the plaint. There is justification for the learned Counsel for the petitioner to contend that even on the basis of the plaint averment and the admissions made by the plaintiff as PW 4, the only reasonable inferences that can be drawn are, (1) that the plaintiff was the second tenant, that is, the shop in suit was not first let out to him and (2) that soon after the construction of the suit house inclusive of the shop in suit, it was rented out first to Sindhi Vaidyaraj (Vishandass Sindhi). It was held in Narayan Bhogwantrao Gosavi Bolajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and Ors. : 1SCR773 that admission is the best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous Same it the view taken in Bharatsingh and Ors. v. Mst Bhagirathi : 1SCR606 in which it was held that admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted and weight to be attached to an admission made by a party is a matter different from its use as admissible evidence The learned Additional District Judge, in my opinion, has acted in complete disregard of the well recognised principles relating to the admissions made in the pleadings and the statements of the parties. When he made out a case, wholly inconsistent with what was set up by the plaintiff in his plaint and the statement I have no doubt that he has committed an illegality or at least a material irregularity which has affected the decision of the case From the averments made in the plaint and the statement of PW 4 Ramlal, it is clear that the basic rent of the shop in suit was Rs. 8.00 per month and it was first let out to Sindhi Vaidraj (Vishandass Sindhi) soon after the construction of the house in which the shop is situate, in the year 1943.
7. On the basis of these facts, the next question which arises is, what should be the standard rent? Learned Munsif, taking Rs. 8.00 as the basic rent, increased the same by 2/12 times under Section 6(2)(b) of the Rajas-than Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act), As stated above, the learned Additional District Judge, in view of the conclusion to which he arrived at, did not examine this aspect in as much as, according to him, the shop was first rented out to the plaintiff on March 1, 1954 at Rs. 10.00 per month, and it was the standard rent. The rent fixed by the learned Munsif having regards to the circumstances of the case of the case, in exercise of his discretion, does not call for any interference in revision.
8. The result is that I am constrained to allow this revision application and set aside the appellate judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated August 26, 1976 and restore that of the learned Munsif City, Jodhpur dated December 19,1973. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.