- (1.) The subject-matter of dispute in these two Rules obtained by the landlords is the standard rent of a godown, known as godown No. 25 situate on the ground floor of municipal premises No. 150A, Lower Chitpur Road. The floor area of the godown is 8,488 sq.ft. and it is admitted that on December 1, 1941 the opposite parties were tenants in respect of the godown at a monthly rent of Rs. 575. It is also admitted that sometime after December 1, 1941 and before December 31, 1949. the tenants affected structural alterations inside the godown by erecting seven partition walls at their expense but with the consent of the landlord and that as a result of these alterations what was formerly a single godown was converted into eight godowns. It is further admitted that in consideration of the permission granted to the tenants to sub-let the godown the landlords from time to time enhanced the contractual rent. From March 26, 1943 up to January 1946 the godown was under requisition. After derequisition the godown was held at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 for three years from June, 1946 and after June, 1949 the contractual rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,721 per month. On March 18, 1953 the tenants filed an application for fixing the standard rent and on October 10. 1953 the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 879-12 per month with effect from April, 1953, holding that the standard rent should be determined under Section 9(1)(e) of the Rent Control Ate of 1950. Against that order there were two appeals, one by the landlords and the other by the tenants. By an order, dated February 10, 1955, the appellate Bench confirmed the decision of the Rent Controller that the standard rent should be determined under Section 9(1)(e), but dismissed the tenants' application upon the view that the tenants had failed to furnish materials which would enable the court to come to a conclusion about the rent which would have been reasonably payable for the premises if let out on December 1, 1941. The appeal of the landlords was accordingly allowed and the appeal of the tenants dismissed. Against the two orders in the two appeals the tenants moved this Court under Section 32(4) of the Act and this gave rise to C. Rules 1102 and 1104 of 1955. By a judgment, dated January 3, 1953, Bachawat and Guha Ray, JJ made the two Rules absolute, set aside the orders passed by the appeal late Bench and remanded the appeal for rehearing for recording a finding on the question whether as a result of the structural alterations effected by the tenant with the consent of the landlord the premises had lost their identity; because in their Lordships' opinion the appellate Bench had fallen into an error in applying Section 9(1)(e) without recording a finding on that point. As a result of the hearing the appellate Bench has come to the conclusion that having regard to the fact that the covered area of the godown remained the same as on December 1, 1941, the godown cannot be said to have lost its identity by the erection of seven partition walls inside the godown. In this view of the case the appellate Bench has held that the standard rent should be determined under Section 9(1)(a) are not 9(1)(e) and the rent paid on December 1, 1941, i.e., Rs. 575 per month should be taken as the basic rent. The result has been that the standard rent has been reduced from Rs. 879-12 as fixed by the Rent Controller to Rs. 727-6 per month in the tenants' appeal and the landlords' appeal has been dismissed. Against these two orders the landlords have obtained these two Rules.
(2.) The only question that requires consideration in these two Rules is whether the case should be governed by Section 9(1)(a) or 9(1)(e) and in determining that question it should be ascertained whether the "premises" were let out on December 1, 1941. If they were, Section 9(1) (a) will apply; but if they were not, Section 9(1)(e) will apply. If in the present case the standard rent has to be determined under Section 9(1)(a), the provisions of schedule A will apply and under para. (1)(b) of that schedule the basic rent is the rent "which was payable for the premises on December 1, 1941." If again, the standard rent is to be determined under Section 9(1)(e), the basic rent would be the rent "which would have been reasonably "payable for the premises if let on December 1, 1941". In either case, therefore, the basic rent is the rent either actually or reasonably payable for the premises, and the enquiry accordingly is whether the premises were or were not let on December 1, 1941. The word premises has an artificial meaning according the definition in Section 2(8) of the Rent Control Act of 1950. According to that definition it means "a building or part of a building "let separately". The idea of a tenancy is, therefore, inseparable from the word "premises" as used in the Act. Viewed in the light of the definition of the word "premises", therefore, the enquiry in a case like this is whether the tenancy was or was not in existence on December 1, 1941, and the point for determination is whether the tenancy of the opposite party as it existed on December 1, 1941 has lost its identity.
(3.) Mr. Jitendra Nath Guha appearing for the opposite party has argued that in view of the order of remand made by this Court in C. Rules 1103 and 1104 of 1955 the enquiry into the identity of the tenancy is no longer open and that the only enquiry open to the parties is an enquiry into the physical identity of the godown. Strong reliance has been placed upon the concluding portion of their Lordships' judgment which runs as follows: If the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court finds by reason of the construction of the partition walls, the godown has not lost its identity it will be his duty to apply the provisions of Section 9(1)(a) and fix the standard rent accordingly. If on the other hand, the learned Judge finds that premises has lost its identity, it will be his duty to apply Section 9(1)(e).;