Bansilal Singh vs Benjamin Paul and Others

Heard the arguments of the respective advocates. On going through the record we are of opinion that the Rent Controller in this case has not conformed to the provisions of R. 5 of the Rent Control Order.

An application was filed by the tenant for the fixation of a fair rent under R. 4 of the Rent Control Order. The Rent Controller reduced the rent from Rs. 40 to Rs. 20. It is obligatory on every Rent Controller when determining the amount of fair rent to take into consideration a number of circumstances such as the prevailing rent for similar property in the locality in which the house is situated, the accommodation available for the tenant, the location of the house and the amenities that the tenant is enjoying. The reasons given by the Rent Controller for reducing the rent, according to us, do not justify the reduction of rent according to law. The increasing or decreasing of the rent is not left to the whim and caprice of the Rent Controller. It has to be determined having regard to certain well established principles such as the general increase or decrease of rents in the vicinity, the enhancement or reduction of municipal assessment, special and particular amenities afforded to the tenant. These are matters which the Rent Controller should have taken into consideration.

The Rent Controller has not conformed to the provisions of R. 5 of the Rent Control Order and has not bestowed any attention to the fact that the municipal assessment has been increased and that the owner has spent towards the repairs of the portion a large sum of money. We allow this application and remand the case to the Rent Controller with a direction to investigate into the matter again in the light of R. 5 of the Rent Control Order and having regard to directions set forth above and pass a fresh order. The Petitioner will have the costs of this petition of this Court. Advocate''s fee Rs. 40 (rupees forty only).