R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by determination of standard rent u/Sec. 3 (k) (i) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 the petitioner who is the landlady of Bungalow no. 123, situated in Cantonment Area, Roorkee Road, Meerut Cantt., has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was claimed by her that respondent no. 3, who was an allottee, was occupying the best part of the Bungalow located in Aristocratic locality with best market, club etc. and, therefore, he should pay a rent of Rs. 260/- per month. Due to this demand the respondent filed an application u/Sec. 8 (1) of the Act which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority who found that the standard rent of the portion occupied by respondent no. 1 came to Rs. 153/- only but considering the enhancement in the market value and that the building was assessed in 1972 to 1975 at Rs. 12,090/- the respondent should pay Rs. 42/-per month. In appeal the respondent conceded that he was not inclined to contest the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority and was willing to pay Rs. 42/- per month. The appellate authority, therefore, dismissed both the appeals that is, appeal filed by petitioner and the tenant.
(2.) IT has been urged by learned counsel for petitioner that determination of standard rent under U. P. Act XIII of 1972 has to be done u/Secs. 8 and 9 read with Section 3 (k). According to him before Section 3 (k) could be applied a building has to satisfy two conditions, that is it was a building governed under the old Act and let out at time of commencement of Act XIII of 1972. According to him as neither of these conditions were satisfied the application filed on behalf of respondent was not maintainable. Admittedly, the premises in dispute are situated in Cantonment Area, to which the provisions of Rent Control Act III of 1947 were applied by the Central Government by issuing a notification u/Sec. 3 of the Cantnonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act 57 of 1947). What is urged, however, is that as soon as Act III of 1947 was repealed by Act XIII of 1972 the notification extending Act III of 1947 to Cantonment Area automatically came to an end. Therefore, on the date when this Act came into force the old Act i. e. Act III of 1947 did not apply to the premises situated in Cantonment Area. According to learned counsel the position did not in any manner improve by a subsequent notification issued by Central Government on 3rd April, 1972, as according to him, on the date of commencement of the Act that is the day when Act XIII of 1972 came into force the provisions of Act III of 1947 should have applied to the premises in dispute. Reliance has been placed on certain observations made by Division Bench in Lekhraj v. IV Additional District Judge, 1982 AWC 235. The submission does not appear to be correct. Sec. 3 (k) reads as under :- " 'Standard rent,' subject to provisions of sub-section 6, 8 and 10 means- (i) 'in the case of a building governed by the old Act and let out at time of commencement of this Act................ (a) where there is both an agreed rent payable therefor at such commencement as well as reasonable annual rent (which in this Act has the same meaning as in section 2 (f) of the old Act, reproduced in the Schedule), the agreed rent or the reasonable annual rent plus 25% thereon, whichever is greater. (b) ............ (c) where there is neither agreed rent nor reasonable' annual rent, the rent as determined u/Sec. 9 ; " (ii) In any other, the assessed letting value for the time being in force, and in the absence of assessment, the rent determined under section 9 ;" Before clauses (a), (b) and (c) may apply it has to be established that building was governed by old Act and it was let out at time of commencement of this Act. Although parties were at issue building was let out when Act was enforced it has not been clearly found by any of the authorities if building was in occupation of tenants when Act XIII or 1972 was applied to Cantonment Area in 1973. Yet it was admitted by petitioner that building has eight protions which used to be let out and it was in occupation of tenant in 1972. There could be no better evidence than admission of petitioner herself. The second condition therefore, was satisfied. As regards the submission that as Act III of 1947 was repealed by Act XIII of 1972 it could not continue applying to cantonment area, therefore, it was not a building to which old Act applied. Suffice it to say the building was admittedly governed by old Act till 1972. It does not further require that it should have continued to apply when U. P. Act XIII of 1972 was extended to cantonment area. Expression, 'at the time of commencement of this Act' governs the latter clause that is it should have been let out at that time. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, that application for determination of standard rent was not maintainable is rejected.
(3.) EVEN then the order is liable to be quashed as the authorities have committed manifest error of law in calculating standard rent u/Sec. 3 (k) (b) of the Act. It having been found that there was no agreed rent but the building having been constructed prior to 1946 as was clear from 1940-41 annual assessment the standard rent had to the determined under clause (b) of Section 3 (k) (i). But while calculating it the prescribed authority held that reasonable annual rent was Rs. 376.75 p. that is, Rs. 300/- annual assessment of 1940-44 plus 25 per cent. And as opposite party was tenant of 552.02 covered area out of total constructed area of 1325.8 sq. feet, rent of his share come to Rs. 1.63 p only. But the annual assessment of premises in 1972-75 was Rs. 12,000/-. And as there was eight tenements apart from opposite party and petitioner the monthly assessment came to Rs. 1007.50 p. The opposite party being in possession of l/24th only was liable to pay Rs. 42. In determining monthly rent on annual assessment of 1940-44 the prescribed authority committed manifest error of law. Reasonable rent in case of accommodation constructed before July, 1946 according to Schedule of the Act means, Section 5 : (1) Except as hereinafter provided in this section, the rent payable for any accommodation, to which this Act applies, shall be such as may be agreed-upon between the landlord and the tenant. (2) Where the rent for any such accommodation has not been agreed upon or where in the case of tenancies continuing from before October 1, 1946, the landlord wishes to enhance the rent agreed upon, he may, by notice in writing, fix the annual rent at, or enhance it to, an amount not exceeding the reasonable annual rent ; Provided that the enhanced rent shall not exceed the rent if any, payable on October 1, 1946, by more than 50 per cent thereof ; Provided further that nothing in this section will entitle the landlord to enhance the rent in the case of leases for a fixed term during the continuance of the term unless so permitted by the contract of tenancy. (3) .................. (4) ..................... (5) ..................... There is nothing in either sub-clauses which may confine Municipal assessment to a period prior to 1940-44. It only provides the manner of calculation that is, Municipal assessment plus 25 per cent. Therefore, it is the Municipal Assessment which is current or which is in operation when question arises which has to be taken into account for determining standard rent. As annual assessment for 1972-75 was Rs. 12,000 it is this assessment which could be taken into consideration for determining annual reasonable rent. But while apportioning it to different tenements the basis of constructed area could not have been adopted. It was not approved by this Court in Lalji Chand v. Mrs. M. G. Rufas, 1980 Alld. Rent Cases 289.;