- (1.) These are sixteen Rules arising out of as many applications for standardisation of rent by tenants. The different premises with which we are concerned are situated in a big building, viz.,Premises No. 152A, Harrison Road, Calcutta. Some of these premises are in the second floor of the said building, some are on the third floor and the rest on the fourth floor of the said building. The Petitioners are the owners of the said Premises No. 152A, Harrison Road. In December, 1941, the entire second floor of the said building was let out to one tenant, viz., Chaturbhujbhai Patel, at a monthly rent of Rs. 120, and the entire third floor was let out to another single tenant Muljibhai Mathurabhai and Sons at the same figure, and the entire fourth floor was untenanted and vacant in December, 1941. After the expiry of the month of December, 1941, both the above tenants, viz., Chatubhujbhai Patel and Muljibhai Mathurabhai and Sons, vacated the floors in their occupation. From 1942 to 1944 the building was repaired and certain changes were made therein. The present tenants came in some time after that. In the course of repairs and construction which were made between 1942 and 1944 separate kitchens were provided for different rooms in the different floors, and the several new tenancies were in respect of these different rooms with the attached kitchens and certain other improvements mentioned in para. 6 of the Petitioners' application to this Court. The tenants were dissatisfied with their contractual rents, and as, according to them, the contractual rents were exorbitant and not permissible under the law they applied for standardisation of the rents of their respective premises.
(2.) The learned Rent Controller standardised the rents of the different rooms forming the subject-matter of the different tenancies on the basis of the rental of the entire second floor in 1941, when the said entire floor was let out to a single tenant. What he did was to take the total rental of the said single tenant for the entire floor in December, 1941, and to divide it by the number of rooms and thus find out the basic rent for each of the rooms, and on that basis he standardised the rents of the different tenants who are opposite parties in these Rules. The decision of the learned Rent Controller was affirmed on appeal by the learned Judge, Fourth Bench, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, by whom the landlords' appeals were heard.
(3.) In our opinion, the approach made by both the Rent Controller and the appellate Judge to the cases before us was wrong. It is difficult to see how the basic rent of a particular' room let out as a separate tenancy with separate amenities, provided for the same, can be found out by dividing the rent of the entire floor by the number of rooms comprised therein. It may be that the total rent of the entire floor may be one of the items to be taken into consideration along with other items for the purpose of finding out the basic rent for the different tenancies comprising the different rooms separately. But it is quite clear that the basic rents of these different tenancies of the separate rooms cannot be obtained merely from the figure of the total rental for the entire floor by dividing the same by the number of the rooms. It cannot be disputed that the present premises comprising the different rooms were not let out as such premises under the Rent Control Act in December, 1941. Therefore, the present cases come properly under Section 9(2)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1950, and not under Section 9(1)(a), read with Schedule A of the said Act under which the rents were standardised by the learned Rent Controller and the learned appellate Judge.;