RAMESHWAR DAYAL Vs. SRI KISHAN AND ANR.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Sri Kishan And Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
Kapur, J. -
(1.) THIS order will dispose of two cross -revns 466 of 1949 and 197 of 1950. The Petitioner in Civil Revn No. 466 of 1949 was the tenant of the opposite party. On 28 -3 -1947, the landlord gave a notice under Section 8, Delhi and Ajmer -Merwara Rent Restriction Act, hereinafter called the Act, indicating his intention to increase the rent of the premises in possession of the tenant. It was stated in this that the basic rent was Rs. 49/ - and that the standard rent from 1 -4 -1947, would be Rs. 70/7/ -. He also called upon the tenant to supply him the list of sub -tenants from whom the tenant was charging rent with a view to further increase the rent. On 21 -4 -1947, by Ex. P. 14, the tenant replied that the basic rent was Rs. 32/ - and therefore the landlord would be entitled to get Rs. 52/4/ - as from 1 -6 -1947. He also supplied to him the list of his sub -tenants as required. On 24 -4 -1947, the landlord gave the tenant another notice claiming that the basic rent was Rs. 56/ - and the standard rent from 1 -6 -1947, would be Rs. 34/ - and if the tenant did not agree to pay this sum he must vacate the premises by 31 -5 -1947. On 10 -5 -1947, the tenant replied by a letter, Ex. P. 18, that the basic rent was Rs. 38/14/ -, that increases as allowed by the law should be calculated on that amount and that he would be prepared to pay such increased rent as from 1 -6 -1947. On 19 -11 -1947, the landlord gave another notice, this time for ejectment, saying that the basic rent was Rs. 56/ - and the standard rent was therefore 88/8/ - including enhancement allowed under the law and that Rs. 442/8/ - was due from the tenant as from 1 -6 -1947, to 31 -10 -1947, out of which Rs. 173/12/ - had been paid and Rs. 268/12/ - were therefore due. It was also said in this notice that the tenant should pay this amount by 31 -12 -1947, failing which he must vacate the premises or a suit for ejectment would be brought. As this sum was not paid a suit for ejectment and for recovery of rent was brought on 19 -1 -1948.
(2.) THE case was fixed for hearing on 16 -3 -1948, when the deft appeared and put in his pleas and it was adjourned for evidence to some date in May 1948. On the same day an Appellant was filed by the deft saying that he had brought Rs. 444/1/ - to pay the amount of rent due plus costs and that he should be allowed to deposit that sum. On the permission being given the money was actually decreased on the 17th of March. The case was cried by Mr. Biuaos who dismissed the prayer for ejectment and held the standard rent to be Rs. 70/7/ - p.m. taking the basic rent to be Rs. 49/ - p.m. He also passed a decree for Rs. 346/2/ -, as arrears of rent. Against this decree the Pltf went up in appeal to the Senior Subordinate Judge who allowed the appeal holding that the standard rent was Rs. 78/14/ -p.m. - basic rent being Rs. 56/1 and as the whole of the rent due was not deposited a required by proviso to Section 9(1)(a), he decreed the prayer for ejectment also and enhanced the amount due as arrears of rent to Rs. 374/3/ -. Against this decree a revn has been brought, in this Court by the tenant and another by the landlord claiming the standard rent to be Rs. 88/8/ - p.m. It was submitted by the tenant that no order of ejectment could be made because on the first day of appearance as required by Section 9(1)(a) of the Act the requisite amount of money was paid and that the standard rent was not Rs. 78/14/ - but should be calculated takings the basic rent to be Rs. 38/14/ -. In order to determine this, it is necessary to refer to certain sections of the Act. Section 2(c) defines the standard rent and it runs as under:
2(c) 'Standard rent', in relation to any premises means:
(i) standard rent of the premises as determined in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2, or
(ii) where the standard rent has been fixed by the Ct under Section 7, the rent as fixed by the Court; or
(3.) SECTION 4 of the Act provides for lawful increase or additions to standard rent in cases where alterations are made or where subletting is done by the tenant. Section 7 provides for determination of disputes regarding rent Section 7(2) says:
7(2) Where for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises on the principles set forth in Schedule the Ct may on the Appln of any person interested or of its own motion, determine the standard rent and in so doing shall have regard to the standard rents of similar premises in the same locality and other relevant considerations.
3. Where the standard rent of any premises has been settled on the basis of a lease for a period of one year or more and the Ct has to determine the standard rent of the same premises on a lease for a period of less than one year or 'vice versa', the standard rent shall be calculated in accordance with Schedule 3.
4. Where the Court determines the standard rent of any premises under this section, the Ct shall determine the standard, rent of the premises in an unfurnished state, but may also determine an additional charge to be payable on account of fittings or furnishings included, in the lease and it shall be lawful for the land lord to recover such additional charge from the tenant.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.