JAGRANI Vs. JORAWAL
LAWS(MPH)-1967-4-2
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on April 18,1967

JAGRANI Appellant
VERSUS
JORAWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS second appeal arises from a proceeding under Section 10 of the M P accommodation Control Act. 1961 for assessment of standard rent by increasing it bv 70 per cent The appellant's husband. Mathura Prasad. made an application for fixation of fair rent to the Rent Con-troller in the year 1954 The Rent Controller fixed Rs 22-50 as the fair rent of the suit accommodation. In the present proceedings the appellant claimed an increase by 70 per cent under the provisions ot the M. P. Ac-commodation Control Act, 1961. (section 7), The tenant resisted the application on the ground that no further increase was permissible. The Rent controller allowed the landlord's application and Increased the rent to Rs. 38-25, that is, by 70 per cent the accommodation being non residential. The tenant appealed. The learned District Judge has held that the landlord did not disclose all material facts which would have enabled the Rent Controlling Authority to fix standard rent under Section 7. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controlling Authority. The landlord has preferred this second appeal
(2.) IT is common ground that all facts material for the determination of the question are on record.
(3.) BUT on the question whether the provision relating to increase under Section 7 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. applies to Clause (1) of Section 7 as well or is limited in its application to Clause (2), there are two decisions of two division Benches of this Court. They conflict with each other The earlier decision is shivratan v. Parasram, Misc Appeal No. 16 of 1964 D/-27-10 1964-1965 Jab LJ (Notes) 47 by a Divi-sion Bench consisting of Nevaskar and Krish-nan. JJ That decision was pronounced on a reference by Tare, J. The other decision is by my lord the Chief Justice and Pande. J. in Mukundla v. Shankerlal, 1965 MPLJ 211 = (AIR 1965 Madh Pra 185 ). It does not appear that the decision in Shivratan, Misc. A. No 16 ot 1964 D/-27-10 1964-1965 Jab LJ (Notes) 47 (supra) was brought to the notice of the Division Bench which heard Mukundlal's case 1965 MPLJ 211 = (AIR 1965 Madh Pra 185) (supra ).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.