1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7635/2006 (Nirmal Kumar Duggar Versus Narendra Kumar & Another) Date of Order :: 31st August, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri B.L. Mandhana, Counsel for the petitioner (s) Shri Parag Rastogi, Counsel for the respondent (s) BY THE COURT: At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of finally. The plaintiff-petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 12th July, 2006 passed by the trial court rejecting his application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC for amendment in the plaint. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the law was not settled as to whether the old Rent Control Act will apply or new Rent Control Act will apply on the pending applications for determination of standard rent and now after settling the position by the Full Bench, he moved an 2 application for amendment in the plaint to the effect that instead of Rs. 1000/- per month, the standard rent may be fixed as Rs. 5364/- per month. He further contended that as per definition of 'Standard Rent' as defined under Section 2(vi) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the standard rent has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He further submits that unless the plaint itself is not allowed to be amended, he will not be able to adduce the evidence in this regard and the Court will not be able to determine the standard rent more than the prayed in the suit. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and contended that amendment sought in the plaint cannot be allowed. So far as position of law with regard to definition of 'standard rent' and determination thereof in accordance with law is concerned, he submits that he will have no objection in the trial court in case the plaintiff is allowed to adduce evidence about present market value of the rent and determination of standard rent. He fairly and frankly admitted that without setting aside the order of the trial court and without permitting 3 the plaintiff to amend his plaint, the plaintiff may be allowed to adduce his evidence in respect of market rent of the rented premises as per the provisions of law. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after considering their submissions and examining the impugned order, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to plaintiff to adduce evidence in respect of market rent of the rented property in accordance with Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. It is needless to mention that the defendants-respondents will be at liberty to raise all legal submissions in this regard. With the aforesaid liberty and observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK/