B. D. Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the III Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad, dated October 14, 1980, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
(2.) RESPONDENT no. 3 brought a suit against the petitioner and the proforma respondents nos. 4 and 5 under section 20 (2) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (for short the 'Act'). According to the respondent no. 3 landlord, the rent payable was Rs. 23/- per month. It was contended that despite service of combined notice of demand and ejectment, the tenants had not made payment of the rent nor had they tendered the rent due and, therefore, the default was incurred. The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment, including the relief of recovery of arrears of rent. In revision filed by the petitioner and the other tenants, the same was dismissed on October 14, 1980, by the revisional court being of the view that the rent due was at the rate of Rs. 23/- per month and the same had neither been tendered nor paid within the prescribed period subsequent to the service of combined notice. Aggrieved, the petitioner-one of the tenants has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that for purposes of Section 3 (k) of the Act the annual reasonable rent referred to in Section 2 ( f) of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 has to be taken with reference to the assessment as it obtained during the period of 1948-49. The argument is that the assessment relating to the building as it may have been in force at the commencement of the Act is not to be taken into consideration. It is urged further in this behalf that if the assessment on the date immediately preceding the commencement of the Act were to be considered for this purpose then it may mean an enhancement to the extent of 75 per cent. Over the agreed rent and this, it is submitted, is against the statutory provisions.
(3.) IT is the common case of the parties that the building in question was governed by the old Act. There is no dispute that this was let out at the time when the Act (new Act) commenced on July 15, 1972. Section 3 (k) of the Act in so far as relevant provides that in the case of a building governed by the old Act and let out at the time of the commencement of this Act where there is both an agreed rent payable therefor at such commencement as well as a 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 per cent. thereon, which ever is greater shall be the standard rent. In the Schedute to the Act Section 2(f) of the old Act has been incorporated and this is so far as relevant provided that annual reasonable rent in the case of accommodation constructed before July 1, 1946, means if it is separately assessed in municipal assessment, its municipal assessment plus 25 per cent thereon. There is no dispute that this is a building separately assessed in municipal assessment and that it was constructed before July 1, 1946. Considered in the light of the relevant provisions, it will be noticed that in the present case admittedly, was as on July 15, 1972, the agreed rent at the rate of Rs 15/- per month of the building in question, as well as the reasonable annual rent. The dispute is with regard to the amount of reasonable annual rent. The significant fact in this behalf would seem to be that whereas in accordance with Section 3 (k) of the Act, Section 2 ( f) of the old Act has been adopted for purposes of this Act by having been incorporated in the Schedule, the definition that was given to the expression 'municipal assessment' in Section 2 (e) of the old Act has not been so adopted. The question, therefore, arises whether in interpreting the expression 'municipal assessment' as appearing in Section 2(f) (1) of the old Act as incorporated in the Schedule to the new Act, the definition given to the expression 'municipal assessment' in the old Act contained in Section 2 (e) thereof is to be taken into account. In my view the answer to this is in the negative. The reason is that Section 3 (k) (i) (a) of the Act refers to the agreed rent or the reasonable annual rent at the commencement of this new Act. The expression 'at such commencement' appearing in this clause governs not merely the agreed rent but also the reasonable annual rent, meaning thereby what has to be taken into consideration is the amount of the reasonable annual rent as it may be arrived at in reference to July 15, 1972, when the new Act commenced. Undisputedly the agreed rent at such commencement was Rs. 15/- per month. The expression 'municipal assessment appearing in Section 2 (f) (1) of the old Act does not by itself refer to the assessment obtaining during any specified period. In the absence of any such indication the expression "municipal assessment" in Section 2 (f) (1) would mean the assessment for the time being in force. When read in the context of Section 3 (k) (1) (a) of the new Act this denotes the municipal assessment at the commencement of the new Act. In other words, this pin points the assessment relevant as pertaining to July 15, 1972. There being nothing to the contrary in Section 3 (k) or elsewhere in the Act it would be unjustified in my opinion to treat municipal assessment as meaning the assessment that held good about quarter of a century earlier in 1948-49 as the petitioner's learned counsel contends. The intention behind Section 3 (k) (1) (a) clearly is to befix the standard rate at the enhanced rate of 25 per cent over and above the agreed rent or the reasonable annual rent, whichever be greater. In either case the amount to be taken into account whether this be the agreed rent or reasonable annual rent is in relation to the period immediately before the commencement of the Act. If it were intended to confine the expression 'municipal assessment' appearing in Section 2 (f) (1) of the old Act to the definition given in the old Act itself, it does not appear that that definition should not as well have been incorporated in the Schedule and made a part of this Act. It also may not be said to be correct that this may amount to enhancement by 75 per cent. The reason is that in order to bring agreed rent to the level of reasonable annual rent within the meaning of Section 2 (f) (1) of the old Act it will be municipal assessment plus 25 per cent thereon and in order to that this may be standard rent permissible under Section 5 of the Act a further addition of 25 per cent is permissible over and above the same. This means thus a rise to the extent of 50 per cent only over and above the municipal assessment.;