A. Banerji, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition by the tenant Ram Gopal and his brother challenging the order of the District Judge, Banda, dated 21st November, 1975 passed in revision against the order of the learned Munsif acting as Judge Small Causes Court, Banda.
(2.) THE relevant facts briefly stated are as follows : THE petitioner no. 1 was the tenant of the house in dispute at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. Respondent no. 3 Kamal Kishore the landlord of the house had given a notice under Sec. 5 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for enhancing the rate of rent by 25%. THE tenant did not pay the rent since 1-7-1972. THE landlord also alleged that the tenant had sub-let the house in dispute in favour of the petitioner no. 2 and had also damaged a part of the house in dispute. He also terminated the tenancy by a notice dated 25-4-1973 under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, In their reply the tenant and his brother denied the right of the landlord to enhance the rent by 25%. THE notice dated 4-10-1972 was duly replied and a bona-fide dispute was raised as a part of the accommodation had fallen down which had not been repaired by the landlord. In other words, the right of the landlord to enhance the rent was disputed. THE rent due had been sent by money order which was refused by the respondent no. 3 and thereafter it was deposited in the court under section 30 of the Act. THE tenant thus pleaded that he had not committed any default. He also denied to have sublet the house or damaged the house. The learned Munsif who tried the case as the Court of Small Causes, held that the petitioner no. 1 had committed default in payment of rent but he had nei-their caused any damage to the building nor sub-let the house in dispute. In view of its finding on the question of default the court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 267-60 from 1-7-1972 to 25-5-1973 at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month and for damages for use and occupation from 26-5-1973 to 2-7-1973 at the rate of Re. 1/- per day and also for ejectment of the tenant from the house in dispute together with costs and pendentelite and future damages for the use and occupation at the rate of Re. 1/-per day. A revision against the above decision was heard by the learned District Judge. The revision was dismissed and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. It is against the above decision that the present writ petition has been filed. Mr. R.R.K. Trivedi, learned counsel, for the petitioners raised three contentions. His first contention was that in Sec. 3 (k) (i) (a) of the Act the 25% enhancement is applicable only to the reasonable annual rent and not to the agreed rent. In other words, his contention was that there could be no enhancement of 25% of the rent in case of a building where there was an agreed rent. This contention has no substance. "Standard rent" has been defined in Sec. 3 (k) of the Act. In the case of a building governed by the old Act, and let out at the time of the commencement of the Act, it is the agreed rent or the reasonable annual rent, plus 25% thereon, whichever is greater which the standard rent. Secondly, where there is no agreed rent and there is a reasonable annual rent then the reasonable annual rent plus 25% thereon would constitute a standard rent. Thirdly, where there is neither an agreed rent nor the reasonable annual rent, the standard rent would be one as determined under Section 9 of the Act. In the present case it is admitted between the parties that the rent of Rs. 20/-per month was being paid from 1961 onwards by the tenant. It would, therefore, be correct to draw an inference that the agreed rent was Rs. 20/-per month. The contention that the enhancement of 25% was not applicable to agreed rent is wholly mis-conceived. The provisions of Sec. 3(1) (a) came up for consideration in several decisions of this Court. In the case of Sant Narain v. Ram Kishan, 1980 ALJ 34 a learned single Judge held that it was not possible to read the words "plus 25" as being addressed only to reasonable annual rent for the words "whatever is greater" indicated that the standard rent is the agreed rent plus 25% or the reasonable annual rent plus 25% whichever is greater. In the decision of Ram Dutt v. D. J. Nainital, 1980 ALJ 179 another learned Single Judge was called upon to determine if the words "which ever is greater" are surpuls. The answer was in the negative. I am in respectful agreement with the above views expressed in the above decisions. The provisions of enhancement of 25% is applicable to both the cases of agreed rent and the reasonable annual rent. If it was only confined to reasonable annual rent that situation is provided by clause (b) itself. In that event clause (a) of Sec. 3 (k) (i) of the Act would be rendered meaningless. A provision of the Act has to be reasonably interpreted. One cannot interpret the provision of a statute in a pendantic manner. From a reading of the provisions of Sec. 3(k) (i) with clauses (a), (b) and (c) together it is clear that there is a provision for the enhancement of rent by 25% whether it is the agreed rent or the reasonable annual rent. Enhancement applies to both but whichever is greater, is the standard rent. In the present case the court below was justified in holding that the standard rent was Rs. 25/- per month after enhancement.
(3.) THE second contention was that the landlord could not enhance the rest unilaterally and when a dispute had been raised by the tenant it was for the landlord to get the dispute settled by making an application under Sec. 8 of the Act to the District Magistrate. I find no substance in this argument as well. Section 5 provides for the rent payable in the case of old building. It reads as follows :- " 5. Rent payable in case of old buildings : In the case of a tenancy continuing from before the commencement of this Act, in respect of a building to which the old Act was applicable, the landlord may, by notice in writing given within three months from the commencement of this Act enhance the rent payable therefor to an amount not exceeding standard rent, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of this Act." THE provision makes it clear that a tenant of a building which was governed by the old Act, (U. P. Act III of 1947) is also liable to pay an enhanced rent from the date of the commencement of this Act. Four conditions had to be satisfied-(1) it must be a building which was governed by the old Act, (2) the tenancy was continuing on the commencement of the Act, (3) the landlord had given a notice in writing to the tenant enhancing the rent, and (4) that amount does not exceed the standard rent. If all these conditions were fulfilled then the tenant would be liable to pay the said rent from the date of the commencement of the Act, i.e. 15th July, 1972. THE words "the rent so enhanced shall be payable" make it clear that the enhanced rent i.e. rent not exceeding the standard' rent is payable by the tenant from the commencement of the Act. In other words, the tenant is liable to pay the said rent. If the tenant raises a dispute about the rent payable the forum for determination of such a dispute is the District Magistrate under section 8 of the Act. An application has, in that case, to be moved before the District Magistrate. THE contention of the learned counsel that it was the landlord who had to go to the District Magistrate for the determination of the standard rent is wholly misconceived. It is clear that enhanced rent is payable on compliance of the requirements of Sec. 5 of the Act. THE Act empowers the landlord to enhance the rent unilaterally. It does not require any consent of the tenant. If the tenant disputes that rent, it is the tenant who has to go to the District Magistrate to raise the dispute by making an application. In the present case the tenant had not made any application under Sec. 8 of the Act to the District Magistrate. If he had made such an application he could have raised the question of the accommodation having fallen down or such other pleas as were open to him for the settlement of the amount of standard rent. He having not done so, the landlord was entitled to charge the standard rent as determined under Sec. 3 (k) and demanded under Sec. 5 of the Act. The third contention was that a portion of the house had fallen down and the court below had committed an error in not reducing proportionately the rent payable. I find no merits in this contention whatsoever. The matter regarding the damage to the portion of the house was considered by the trial court and it was observed that this version of the defendant Ram Gopal does not appeal, nor it is supported by any convincing piece of evidence. The learned District Judge had also considered this matter and ultimately came to the conclusion that there was oath against oath in regard to the question as to how the Chhappar got demolished. Since the tenant alleged that the Chhappar was demolished by the landlord the burden was clearly on him to establish the same. He having failed to do so, cannot claim that the rent should have been proportionately reduced.;