- (1.) THESE four revisions arise out of four suits which were brought by the tenants, the landlord in all the cases being the same person, namely, Shri Anandi Prasad. The landlord built certain shops which were ready in October 1949. These shops were allotted to different persons by the Rent control and Eviction Officer. After the order of allotment, it appears that two of the tenants, namely, Misri Lal and Topan Das, executed rent agreements in favour of Anand Prasad agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 40/- per month each, for the two snops that had been allotted to them. No such rent agreements appear in the cases of Pritam Singh and Brij Bhushan Lal, but statements were made by their counsel in the court below saying that as an alternative plea, they submitted that the agreed rent ol the shops was Bs. 40/- per month and the same was unfair. In spite of the execution of the sarkhats in two of the cases, applications were made to the Bent Control and eviction Officer for fixation of rent under Section 3 (a) of tne Bent Control and Eviction Act in all the cases. The officer concerned considered some of the circumstances of the case and was of the opinion that annual reasonable rent of these shops was a sum of Es, 4807-, that is, Rs. 40/per month. Revisions were filed against this order of the Bent Control and Eviction Officer and the learned district Magistrate modified the order, as he was of the opinion that the rent should be fixed for the shops at the sum of Rs. 30/- per month. The order of the Bent Control and Eviction Officer was passed on the 28th of March 1950 and the order of the learned District Magistrate reducing the rent was passed on the 21st of July 1951. It was after this that the present suits were brought by the tenants on the ground that the annual reasonable rent fixed by the District Magistrate was excessive and should be reduced. In the plaints, as they were originally filed the case of the plaintiffs was that the annual reasonable rent being excessive it should be reduced; and it was nowhere stated that there was any agreed rent between the parties. But during the progress of the suits in two of the cases, as already mentioned, rent agreements were filed, and in the two other suits the counsel for the plaintiffs made statements that the agreed rent may be taken to be Rs. 40/- as an alternative case. The suits were contested by the defendant landlord and his main contention was that the order of the learned District Magistrate was ultra vires as He had no right to interfere with the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, it was also stated that the agreed rent was not unfair nor were the agreed and reasonable rents excessive. The learned Munsif after going through the facts of the case came to the conclusion that it is the order of the District Magistrate that should prevail because it was not proved in the case that he had delegated his power of fixing the rent under Section 3 (a) to the Bent Control and Eviction Officer. The reasonable annual rent, therefore, according to the learned Munsif, was a sum of Rs. 30/- per month. He then considered whether the reasonable annual rent was excessive and came to the conclusion that even the sum of Rs. 30/- was excessive. On the question as to whether the transaction by which the rent was fixed was unfair, the learned Munsif held that there was a great dearth of accommodation in the district and the tenants are in urgent need of the shops and therefore the transaction must be taken to be unfair. He then considered what the proper rent for these shops should be and came to the conclusion that tile sum of Rs. 20/-per month for each of the shops was the proper rent; he also specified the dates from which this rent was payable.
(2.) THE landlord has now come up in revision against this decision of the learned Munsif.
(3.) THE first point argued by the learned counsel for the applicant landlord was that the tenants could have Drought tne suits either on the ground that the annual reasonable rent was excessive or on the ground that the agreed rent was excessive, and tnat it was not open to them to have included both these assertions in one case. Emphasis is laid on the use of the word 'or' in sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act. I am unable to accept this contention. If the position is that the agreed rent and the reasonable rent are both excessive, there is no reason for prohibiting the tenant from asserting in one suit that they are both, excessive. The two causes of action can certainly be joined together in the same suit and there is nothing in the provisions of the Rent Control and Eviction Act to prohibit such a joinder of causes of action.;