Ibrahim Fazalbhai vs Jan Mahomed Rahim

Madgavkar, J.—[His Lordship after discussing the evidence, concluded as follows :] The only question which remains is the question of law, whether in this view of the facts, the premises in suit fell u/s 2, Clause (a)(ii) of the Rent Act, and whether the standard rent of these premises was Rs. 225 or whether the plaintiffs are only entitled to come in u/s 4 in respect of the amount they spent. I am of opinion that for the reasons and in the view of the law taken in Chapsey Umersey v. Keshavji Damji ILR (1920) 45 Bom. 744, 23 Bom. L.R. 133 and in the unreported decision of Pratt J. in Tricumdas Gordhandas v. Narayanlal Bansilal (1925) O.C.J. Suit No. 43 of 1925 decided by Pratt J. on April 16, 1925 (Unrep.) and English cases such as Stockham v. Easton [1924] 1 K.B. 52 and Marchbank v. Campbell [1923] 1 K.B. 245, the plaintiffs are entitled to have these premises treated as new premises in respect of which the defendant had no complaint but submitted to have them treated as now premises, as for the matter of that did every other tenant as far as record goes with the single exception of one tenant Dr. Moses for a small amount of rent due for the single room. I am of opinion that the two Hats occupied as a single flat by the defendant in November 1920 were premises not to be identified with the premises as they stood before the wall fell down and before Fazalbhai made extensive alterations. In other words, the identity of the premises changed. In so holding I desire carefully to guard myself against any judicial decision that a landlord can by a pretence of substantial alterations deprive tenants of the benefit of standard rent. On the contrary, in view of the settled policy of the Rent Act, it is quite clear that the Courts would not lend themselves to any such action but would have to be carefully satisfied that the identity of the new premises has been really altered so as to enable a landlord to do what he did in the present case, evidently without any deliberate act of evicting the old tenant or merely to raise the rent.

In the result, therefore, the plaintiffs'' claim must be allowed and the defendant''s counter-claim dismissed with costs.