AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Haque, J.—The judgment and decree dated 21.11.1977 passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in Case No. M.S. 7 (T) of 1971 which was affirmad in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 2 (T) of 1978 by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (District Judge), Shillong vide order dated 17.2.1979 have been impugned by the Defendant Petitioner.
The Opposite Parties-Plaintiffs were the owner of the building known as DUNLUCE at Shillong. The N.E.F.A. Administration (Petitioner) occupied the said building as tenant with effect from 1.2.1958 at the monthly rent of Rs. 550.00. The tenant wanted that the rent should be fixed under the provision of law. The tenant informed the land lord by letter No. EST. 24/61, dated 29.10.1952 (Ext. I in the suit) that the tenant was agreable to pay rent which would be fixed by the Deputy Commissioner under Assam Urban Arers Rent Control Act, 1961 with effect from 1st March, 1962. In pursuance thereof, the Defendant (tenant) wrote the letter No. NT/7/60, dated 20-6-1963 to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong; (Ext. 2 in the suit) for I fixation of the standard rent of the building "DUNLUCE". The Deputy Commissioner fixed the rent at Rs. 954.00 per month tide his Memo No. L. 14/6/8 (XX) 226, dated 20-5-1968 (Ext. 3 in the suit) mentioning therein that refixation of rent would be effective from 15-3-1962. Accordingly the plaintiff-land lord submitted bills for the total arrear rents amounting to Rs. 67,009.55 p. upto February, 1971. The amount was not paid. So Plaintiff filed the suit after duly serving notice u/s 80 CPC The claim was Rs. 68.053.55 p. on account of arrear rent and interest of Rs. 11,000,00 @ 12% per annum. The suit was contested by the Defendant tenant. After full hearing, the suit was decreed ON contest for Rs. 79,053.55 p. by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong.
The said judgment and decree were up-held by the Appellate Court, namely, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong but the decretal amount was modified to Rs. 73,553.55 p. Therefore, this revision by the Defendant.
Learned Counsel Mr. B.M. Goswami raised the following points on behalf of the Petitioner:
(a) that the Deputy Commissioner was not a Court u/s 2(a) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act to exercise powers u/s 4 of the Act to fix fair rent/standard rent;
(b) that the Deputy Commissioner has not followed the procedure to fix the rent/standard rent ;
(C) that the fixation of the fair rent/standard rent could not be given effect retrospectively.
Mr. P.C. Deka submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong was the Civil Court for the purpose of fixing fair rent u/s 4 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control , Act and that the Deputy Commissioner held inquiry as required and fixed the rent and that the fixation of the fair rent was given effect retrospectively by the order of the Deputy Commissioner as desired by the tenant in his letter exhibit 1, dated 29-10-1962.
The fair rent could be determined by the Court u/s 4 of the Act. ''Court'' means the Court of ordinary Civil jurisdiction of the area in which the rented house is situated and which would be competent to pass decree for the eviction of the tenant from that house.
Admittedly, the house in question was situated within the administared areas of Shillong. Under Rules 25 and 31 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jayantia Hills, 1937 the administration of civil Justice is entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner and his Assistant. So, the Deputy Commissioner and his Assistant shall have discretion to try civil suits. These two Rules, read with Rule 36 A made it clear that the Deputy Commissioner was tin Civil Court competent as envisaged u/s 2(a) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act to exercise the powers u/s 4 of the Act to fix the fair rent/standard rent. The Deputy Commissioner was the Civil Court and bad jurisdiction to exercise the powers u/s 3 and 4 of the Assam Urban Areas Runt Control Act for fixing the fair or standard rent.
The Dependent-Petitioner was tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 550/- from 1-2-1958. But the tenant by his letter No. EST. 24.61, dated 29-10-1962 (Ext. 1) informed the laud lord that the rent of the building had to be re-assignment by the Deputy Commissioner, Khasi and Jayantia Hills, Shillong in terms of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1961 and so decided, pending re-assessment, to payment of the house at the existing rate with effect from the month of March, 1962 onwards subject to re-fixation of rent by the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the tenant filed the application No. NT. 17/60, dated Shillong 20th June, 1963 (Ext. 2) before the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong for re-assessment of house rent in respect of the ''DUNLUCE'' building. The tenant in his application gave the particulars available with him and requested the Deputy Commissioner to obtain the remaining particulars from the land lord and then to fix the fair rent. The land lord by his letter No. GDS/GS/13, dated 2-7-1963 (Ext. 20) to the Deputy Commissioner furnished the required particulars comprising area of the land, year of construction of the building and the Municipal taxes in pursuant to the letter dated 20-6-1963 of the tenant to the Deputy Commissioner and also the Deputy Commissioner letter dated 25-6-1963. The Deputy Commissioner held inquiry on the basis of the particulars furnished by the tenant as well us by the land lord and passed the order (Ext.3) under the provision of Section 4 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1961. The Deputy Commissioner had re-assessed the rent of the building ''DUNLUCE'' at Rs. 954.00 per month. It was made clear by the said order that the re-assessment shall come into force from 15-3-1962.
It was found on scrutiny that the Deputy Commissioner held the inquiry as required u/s 4(2) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1961 for the purpose of determining fair rent on Standard rent. There was no infirmity in the inquiry.
The Deputy Commissioner re-assessed the fair rent with effect from 15th March, 1962 because the tenant desire to reassess the same with effect from the month of March, 1962 as appeared from the tenant''s letter Exhibit I to the land lord. There WAS no illegality in giving retospective effect of the fair rent by the Deputy Commissioner. It was done as desired by the tenant who agreed to pay the rent at the reassessment rats with effect from March, 1962.
Learned Counsel Mr. B. M. Goswami submits that determination of fair rent can be made effective only from the date of re-fixation and not retrospectively. He referred the decisions reported in I.L.R.1959 125 Faizul Haque v. Sohon Lal Oswal. This ruling is not helpful for the Petitioner (tenant) because in the instant case the tenant made an agreement asking to re-assess and fix fair rent with effect from March, 1962. Therefore, the order exhibit 3 of the Deputy Commissioner had to be merged with the contract (exhibit 1) between the parties. The principle of estoppel was applicable against the tenant. The tenant was bound to abide by the re-assessment and determination of the fair rent with effect from 15th March, 1962 as made in exhibit 3 by the Deputy Commissioner. There was no illegality in claiming arrear rents from 15th March, 1962.
The order of fixation of the fair rent under the provision of Section 4 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act was appelable u/s 8 of the Act. The order u/s 4 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 2(M-19M. No appeal was preferred by the tenant against that older. Therefore that order dated 20-5-1968 (exhibit 3) of the Deputy Commissioner stood as a valid decree and became final. The tenent bad no scope- to challenge the validity and legality of that order in the suit riled by the land lord in 1971, for recovery of arrear rents. The suit for recovery of the arrear was filed within three (3) years from 20-5-1968 and it was not time barred.
There was no illegality in decreeing the suit by the original Court and affirming the same by the appellate Court. This Revision has no merit.
In the result, this Revision application is dismissed. No order as to costs.