- (1.) The respondent is a tenant under the appellant in a portion of the building bearing No. 6, Original Road, Karol Bagh Delhi. He had taken these premises on a rent of Rs. 100/- per mensem Part of the said building was occupied by another tenant, Kidar Nath who had taken it on a rental of Rs. 85/- per month. The respondent and Kidar Nath filed two separate applications for fixation of standard rent of the premises which were in their respective occupations. The Controller gave a common judgment on January 4, 1961 with respect to both these applications. He fixed Rs. 95/- as the standard rent of the premises in the occupation of Kidar Nath and Rs. 100/- as the standard rent for the premises occupied by the respondent. Both the tenants filed appeals before the Rent Control Tribunal which were again dealt with by a common judgment dated November 9, 1961 The Tribunal accepted both the appeals; set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and remanded both the cases in exercise of powers under Order 41 rule 23A. Code of Civil Procedure. Appeals against these orders were filed in this Court by the appellant. The appeal filed in respect of Kidar Nath was compromised and the standard rent fixed for the premises in his occupation by the Controller remained. This judgment deals with the appeal filed against the present respondent.
(2.) Parties led evidence before the Controller as to the reasonable cost of construction of the premises in the occupation of the respondent and the market price of the land comprised in the premises on the date of commencement of the construction as contemplated by section 6(1) (A) (2)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Both the parties produced overseers who gave their reports on these two aspects.
(3.) The Controller has observed that according to the report Ex. RW2/3, prepared by Om Parkash Goel (RW2), who was produced by the appellant, the estimated cost of construction of the premises in the occupation of the respondent was Rs. 10,237-12-0 while the market value of the land was Rs. 16,125/- thus making a total of Rs. 26,362-12-0. The Controller also considered the estimate with regard to the reasonable cost of construction and the market value of the land produced by Gyan Chand (PW1), who appeared for the respondent and who had estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 4,404 land the market value of the land at Rs. 1,382/- making a total of Rs. 5,786/-. The Controller rejected the estimate prepared by the respondent's witness, Gian Chand, as he had not assessed the value of the land underneath the passage; the value of the passage; other items and the area under the stairs. The Controller did not give a finding as to the estimate produced by Om Parkash Goel, appellant's witness He observed that the premises in possession of the respondent being on the first floor; there being a common passage; stairs and vacant land and the land being leasehold, the standard rent could not be assessed under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. He, therefore, gave an opportunity to the parties to produce evidence under section 9(4) of the Act but in fact no additional evidence was given. Having come to the conclusion that the standard rent could not be fixed under section 6 the Controller took into consideration the accommodation in the occupation of the respondent; the location of the premises.the fact that it is part of a Kothi and was fitted with modern amenities and proceeded to fix the standard rent under section 9(4) of the Act after observing that land near the premises in dispute had been sold in March 1948 at the rate of Rs. 122-4-0 per square yard showing that the land was very expensive. On account of these circumstances, he fixed the agreed rent of Rs. 100/- Per month as the standard rent.;