Nathu Ram vs Jodha Ram and Another

P.C. Pandit, J.—Nathu Ram instituted a suit, out of which the present petition for revision has arisen, against Jodha Ram and Krishan Lal for their eviction from the premises in dispute. A number of grounds were taken on the basis of which the ejectment was sought, but we are not concerned with them, because the Rent Controller had decided this matter against the landlord and he had not gone up in appeal against the same.

The suit was resisted by the defendants, who pleaded that they were the tenants under the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 65/-. They controverted the allegations on which their eviction was sought and also pleaded that the agreed rent was highly excessive. They prayed that the standard rent of the premises in suit be fixed.

The Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 65/- per mensem, though he dismissed the suit for the eviction of the defendants.

Against this order, only the defendants went in appeal and submitted that the fixation of the standard rent by the Rent Controller at Rs. 65/- per mensem was contrary to law. The Appellate Authority accepted the appeal and fixed the standard rent at Rs. 11/10/-per mensem. Against this, the present revision has been filed by the plaintiff-landlord.

The facts found by the Appellate Authority, after considering the entire evidence, were that the house was constructed in the year 1939 and its first allottee was one Mohan Singh, who paid rent at Rs. 9/4/6 per mensem and remained in occupation from 1940 to 1943. The conten�tion of the petitioner that the first allottee of the house was one Autar Singh who in 1939 used to pay Rs. 45/- per mensem as rent was definitely negatived by the Appellate Authority. It has also been found that the premises had now been let to the respondents for residential-cum-commercial purposes and they were carrying on their business of gold-smithy there. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that these findings were not correctly arrived at by the Appellate Authority. But after hearing him, I am however, of the view that these findings of fact are not in any way vitiated. It is common ground between the parties that the standard rent in the present case has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act 38 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case of the petitioner is that the standard rent has to be fixed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Act, whereas the respondents'' plea is that the same has to be determined in accordance with paragraph 1 (c) (ii), Part A of the Second Schedule of this Act.

The relevant-provisions are given below :

S. 8 (3). Where for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises on the principles set forth in the Second Schedule, the court may, on an application made to it for the purpose, determine the standard rent, and in so doing, shall have regard to the standard rent of similar premises in the same locality and other circumstances of the case.

* * * *

THE SECOND SCHEDULE

( See section 2 (i) )

PART A

PROVISIONS FOR DETERMINING THE STANDARD RENT OF PREMISES IN THE STATE OF DELHI.

In this Part of this Schedule, ''basic rent'' in relating in any premises means-

(a) where the fair rent of the premises has been determined or re-determined under the provisions of the New Delhi Rent Control Order, 1939, the rent as so determined or, as the case may be, redetermined;

(b) where the standard rent of the premises has been fixed by the Court u/s 7 of the Delhi Rent Control Ordinance, 1944 (XXXV of 1944), the rent as so fixed;

(c) in any other case,-

(i) the rent at which the premises were let on the 1st day of November, 1939; or

(ii) if the premises were not let on that date, the rent at which they were first let at any lime after the date but before the end day of June, 1944.

Where the premises in respect of which rent is payable were let, for whatever purpose, on or after the 2nd day of June, 1944, the standard rent of the premises shall be-

(a) where the standard rent of the premises has been fixed by the Rent Controller under the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to the Delhi and Ajmer Marwara Rent Control Act, 1947 (XIX of 1947), such standard rent;

(b) where the standard rent has been fixed by the court under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 8, such standard rent;

(c) in any other case, so long as the standard rent is not fixed by the court, the rent at which the premises were first let.

Where the premises in respect of which rent is payable not being premises to which paragraph 2 applies, are let for the purpose of being used as a residence or for any of the purposes of a public hospital; an educational institution, a public library or reading-room or an orphanage, the standard rent of the premises shall be the basic rent increased by-

(a) 12 1/2% per cent thereof, if the basic rent per annum is not more than Rs. 300;

(b) 15 5/8 per cent, thereof, if the basic rent per annum is not more than Rs. 300/-, but not more than Rs. 600/-;

(c) 18 3/4 per cent, thereof, if the basic rent per annum is more than Rs. 600/-, but not more than Rs. 1,200/-; or

(d) 25 per cent, thereof, if the basic rent per annum is more than Rs. 1,200/.

Where the premises in respect of which rent is payable, not being premises to which paragraph 2 applies, are let for any purpose other than those mentioned in paragraph 3, the standard rent of the premises shall be the basic rent increased by twice the amount by which it would be increased under paragraph 3, if the premises were let for a purpose mentioned in that paragraph.

Where the premises in respect of which rent is payable, not being premises to which paragraph 2 applies, are used mainly as a residence and incidentally for business or profession, the standard rent of the premises shall be the mean of the rent as calculated under paragraphs 3 and 4.

A reading of the above mentioned provisions would show that section 8(3) will come into operation only, where for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises on the principles set forth in the Second Schedule. The question for decision, therefore, is whether the present case is covered by the provisions of the Second Schedule or not. From the facts enumerated above, it is clear that the premises in suit were let to Mohan Singh in the year 1940 at a monthly rent of Rs. 9/4/6, and, therefore, according to the provisions of paragraph 1(c) (ii), this would be the basic rent of these premises. Paragraph 5 of the Schedule allows certain increase in the basic rent in the case of the present premises, which are used mainly for residence and incidentally for business. It is common ground that the standard rent fixed by the Appellate Authority at Rs. 11/10/- per mensem is in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) (ii) read with paragraph 5 of this Schedule. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in 1940 the premises had been let for residential purposes only and now they had been given on rent for residential as well as commercial purposes and, as such, the rent of the year 1940 cannot form the basis for the determination of the basic rent. In this connection, he also referred to the definition of the word "premises" given in section 2(g) of the Act, which lays down that "premises" means any building or part of a building which is or is intended to be, let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose. He also relied on the decision in Krishna Chand v. Gulab Chand A. I. R. 1961 Ajm. 58.

The argument of the learned counsel, in my opinion, has no merit. Part A of the Second Schedule contains the provisions for determining the standard rent of all types of premises in the State of Delhi and in the opening sentence of paragraph 1, it is clearly so mentioned. Further, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 refer to the different increases that would be made in the basic rent, if the premises are now being let for different purposes, as for example, residential, commercial and residential-cum-commercial. All these provisions, therefore, clearly indicate that if the letting purpose was later on changed, it would not make any difference and the standard rent can be determined on the principles set forth in the Second Schedule of the Act. That being so, the provisions of section 8(3) of the Act will not apply and the rent for the year 1940 can form the basis for the determination of the standard rent in the present case. The definition of the word "premises" relied upon by the learned counsel, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the contention raised by him. The authority referred to by him also does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the first place, in that ruling the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer-Marwara Rent Control Act (19 of 1947) were being considered, whereas in this case, the provisions of Act 38 of 1952 are being applied. Secondly, there is no discussion in that authority as to whether the Second Schedule applied to the facts of that case or not.

In view of what I have said above, this revision fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, however, I will leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.