R. B. Lal, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner landlady has prayed for quashing the judgment and order dt. 22-4-1980 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Rampur under section 10 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (briefly the Act).
(2.) THE relevant facts are these: shop no. 27 situated in Bazar Safdarganj Rampur belongs to the petitioner Smt. Shakeela Khatun. This shop was allotted to Zaheer Ahmad respondent no. 3 by order dated 3-5-76 passed under the Act. THE landlady made an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Rampur under section 9 of the Act for determination of the standard rent of the shop. THE said officer found that there was no agreed rent of the shop between the landlady and the allottee tenant (respondent no. 3). He also found that there was no reasonable annual rent or assessment of letting value of the shop in question. He having regard to the various factors mentioned in section 9, determined the standard rent of the shop at Rs. 100/- per month. THE allottee tenant Zaheer Ahmad filed rent appeal no. 4 of 1980 in the court of the District Judge, Rampur. That appeal was decided by the First Additional District Judge by judgment and order dated 22-4-80. THE learned Additional District Judge observed that the shop was an old building to which the old Act (U. P. Act III of 1947) was applicable. At the time of the coming into force of the Act a tenant was in occupation of the shop and was paying Rs. 20/- per month as rent which was agreed rent between the landlady and that tenant. Since there was agreed rent of the shop at the time when the Act came into force, section 9 of Act had no application to the shop in question. THE landlady had no right to get the standard rent fixed under section 9 of the Act. She could charge the standard rent, i. e. agreed rent plus 25 percent by serving a notice on the allottee tenant. In the result the learned Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Aggrieved, the landlady has filed this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the landlady has assailed the correctness of the above view of the learned Additional District Judge. He has urged that the agreed rent between the landlady and the previous tenant who was in occupation of the shop on the date of commencement of the Act, i. e. on 15th July, 1972, could not be taken as agreed rent between the landlady and the allottee tenant for purposes of section 9. Hence, the case of the petitioner was covered under the latter part of sub-section (1) cf section 9 of the Act and the application for fixation of standard rent of the shop was maintainable. THE learned counsel for the allottee, respondent no. 3, has urged that the view taken by the learned Judge was correct and, therefore, the application for fixation of standard rent was rightly rejected. " Sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Act reads thus: (1) In the case of a building to which the old Act was applicable and which is let out at the time of the commencement of this Act in respect of which there is neither any reasonable annual rent, nor any agreed rent, or in any other case where there is neither any agreed rent, nor any assessment in force, the District Magistrate shall, on an application being made in that behalf, determine the standard rent." Sub-section 1) of section 9 is in two parts. THE first part is applicable in a case where the following requirements are fulfilled: (a) THE building is one to which the old Act was applicable. (b) Such building is let out at the time of the commencement of the Act; and (c) THEre is neither any reasonable annual rent, nor any agreed rent in respect of such building. THE Second part is residuary in nature and is applicable in a case where the following requirements are made out: (a) THE case is one which is not covered by Part I, and (b) Where there is neither any agreed rent, nor any assessment in force in respect of the building. In a case which may fall under any of the above parts, the District Magistrate can be approached to determine the standard rent of a building in the occupation of a tenant. The important question for consideration is whether the expression 'agreed rent' occurring in the first part of sub-section (1) of section 9 refers to agreed rent between the landlord and the tenant against whom the former (landlord) is seeking to get standard rent determined; or refers to agreed rent between the landlord and any other tenant who was in occupation of the building at the time of the commencement of the Act. In my opinion, the expression 'agreed rent' should mean agreed rent between the landlord and the tenant against whom he (landlord) is seeking determination of standard rent under section 9 (1) of the Act and not agreed rent between the landlord and any previous tenant, who might have occupied the building at the time of the commencement of the Act. The words 'and which is let out at the time of the commencement of thfs Act' occurring in sub-section (1) of section 9 should also be interpreted in the same light as meaning a tenancy which was continuing from before the commencement of the Act and was in force when application for determination of standard rent was moved under section 9. It does not stand to reason that a rent which was agreed rent between the landlord and a previous tenant may be automatically taken as agreed rent between the landlord and a tenant who may | subsequently occupy the building under allotment order.;