- (1.) This is an application by the Plaintiffs Under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act and it relates to a suit with regard to the rent of a building. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building and the Defendant is its tenant. Admittedly the building was constructed in the year 1944 and, therefore, there is no question of the Municipal Board assessment of the year 1942. The first time, it appears, the building was assessed at the rate of Rs. 30 p.m. and the Plaintiff relying on this assessment filed a suit for a rent of Rs. 37/8/- p.m. after increasing 25 per cent, of the Municipal Board assessment and it was alleged in the plaint that the Plaintiff gave a notice Under Section 5(2) of Rent Control and Eviction Act for fixation of rent at Rs. 37/8/- and, therefore, that rent should now be deemed to be the final rent. The Defendant objected to the assessment of rent being fixed at Rs. 30 p. m. He filed the assessment order of the year 1948 when this house was assessed at Rs. 11/11/- p.m. and, therefore he was willing to pay that rent. He occupied the, house in 1950. Previous to this the former tenant had been paying rent at Rs. 11/11/-p.m. and he sent money orders for the rent at Rs. 11/11/-p.m. but they were refused by the Plaintiff.
(2.) The Court below came to the finding that originally the rent was fixed at Rs. 30 but later on in appeal it was reduced to Rs. 11/11/- p.m. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff relied on Ex. 8 wherein the ''result of the appeal, if any" has been that the rent was fixed at Rs. 30 p.m. and from that he wants to argue that there had been an appeal also and the rent was maintained at Rs. 30 p.m. He says that this assessment has been the first final assessment and, therefore, Under Section 2(e) this assessment should be deemed to be the correct assessment and any subsequent reduction in assessment should be ignored. On the other hand learned Counsel for the opposite parties relies on the statement of the witness of the Plaintiff himself that this assessment at Rs. 30 was only a casual assessment and regular assessment was made in the year 1948. From the evidence and from the documents filed it is not clear whether this was regular assessment or not, and assessment Under Section 2(e) means regular assessment and it cannot include a casual ex parte assessment. Therefore, if this assessment was only casual, that cannot be taken into consideration. Since the figures of Rs. 37/8/- and Rs. 11/11/- vary to a great extent and since the Plaintiff had been receiving rent at Rs. 11/11/- only from the previous tenant, the case requires further investigation. In case, the first regular assessment was at Rs. 30 the Plaintiff would be entitled to a rent as that assessment and the Defendant can ask for a further reduction by filing an application Under Section 5. On the other hand, if the first regular assessment was only at Rs. 11/11/ p.m. then the Plaintiff would not be entitled to more than Rs. 11/11/- merely on the basis of a casual assessment. Since this point, was not investigated by the small cause court, I give the parties an opportunity of leading evidence on this point.
(3.) I, therefore, set aside the decree of the Judge Small Cause Court and the case is sent back to the court below with the direction to readmit it to its original number, give the parties further opportunity to produce evidence about the nature of the assessment and decide the case according to the directions contained herein. I make no order as to costs. No orders are necessary on C.M. Application No. 130 of 1954.;