Chunilal Joshi vs Gora Bibi

Chunder, J.—These five Rules were issued at the instance of tenants against the appellate judgments in five rent fixation appeals.

It appears that two of the premises form part of a larger premises the other premises form no part of the same. The learned Rent Controller did not divide up the rent of the larger premises amongst any smaller premises but, on the other hand, strictly following Section 9(2), he compared the rent of the premises in 1941 with the present premises and arrived at the basic standard rent as required in the section. The case of Bata Shoe Company, Ltd. v. Narayan Das Mallik and Ors. (1951) 88 C.L.J. 191 has no bearing upon the method adopted by him. That decision did not Civil Revision Case Nos. 2715, 2925-28 of 1953 delete Section 9(2). He worked out that the average rate for all the tenancies on a calculation according to Section 9(2) would work out to 1 anna 6 1/2 pies per square feet. He then compared two other exhibits, exs. C and D, relating to other previous fixation cases. The learned Judge has pointed out that they are not admissible in evidence in the present cases, according to law because statements of facts in third party judgments are not evidence.

Oral evidence was not given as regards those tenancies to enable those judgments to be used even for purposes of corroboration.

But even if we exclude these, no difference appears in the rate of rent as worked out by the Rent Controller; because according to the Rent Controller''s calculation the standard rent would work out from those two documents also 1 anna 6 1/2 pies per square feet. On the basis of 1 anna 6 1/2 pies per square feet and comparing the amenities, advantages, disadvantages, and other factors relating to different tenancies, the Rent Controller worked out the basic rent and from that the standard rent. The learned Judge was wrong in setting aside the Rent Controller''s order as it was perfectly legal and correct. The learned Judge did not understand exactly what was done.

It has been urged by Mr. Choudhury that as the landlord applied for enhancement of rent, if the Rent Controller considered that the rent should have been reduced, he should have dismissed the application, but he should not have reduced he rent giving the tenant an advantage, as the tenant did not apply for reduction of rent. This is based entirely upon a misconception of what is the nature of an application to the Rent Controller''s court. The nature of the application, as the Act itself will show, is for merely fixing standard rent which is defined in the Act. It may be standard rent, may be an enhancement over the contractual rent or it may be a reduction. It does not depend on who comes to the court. In either case, whether it is the tenant or the landlord, the Rent Controller is bound to fix the standard rent which may be either enhanced or reduced or the contractual rent. If he finds that no material has been given to him by the party which asks for fixation of standard rent to enable him to do his duty as a court, he will certainly dismiss the application, whoever may have made it on the ground that as he has been given no material the onus has not been discharged and, therefore, the contractual rent must remain the standard rent. If materials are sufficient, whether she landlord prays for enhancement or the tenant prays for reduction, as the application is neither for enhancement nor for reduction but for fixation of standard rent, he must fix the standard rent, whether this, is an enhancement or a reduction over the contractual rent. Therefore, Mr. Choudhury''s contention must fail.

All the five Rules are therefore, made absolute. The appellate orders are set aside and the order of the Rent Controller are restored with costs in both the courts.