Ramji Dass vs Roshan Lal

D. Falshaw, C.J.—This revision petition arises out of an application filed by the tenant Roshan Lal for the fixation of the fair rent for a double-storeyed shop situated in Bazar Boharwala, Jullundur City. The tenant''s allegations were that the rent of the shop in 1938-39 was Rs. 15 per mensem and he had paid rent at that rate up to 1953 when on the pressure from the landlord he began to pay rent at Rs. 30 per mensem.

The landlord denied that the rent in 1938-39 was only Rs. 15 and he alleged that certain improvements were carried out at the instance of the tenant in 1953 when the rent was fixed at Rk 30. He claimed that the fair rent was Rs. 60 per mensem. The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence of the parties fixed the basic rent at Rs. 20 and the fair rent at Rs. 27.50 nP.

Both parties filed appeals against this decision, the result being the dismissal of the appeal of the landlord, the present Petitioner and the acceptance of the tenant''s appeal to the extent of fixing the basic rent at Rs. 15 and the fair rent at Rs. 21 per mensem.

It is not now contested that the actual rent in 1938-39 was Rs. 15 and, therefore, this must constitute the basic rent under the provisions of Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, and the only permitted increase on the basic rent where it does not exceed Rs. 50 per mensem is according to Sub-section (5) 37 1/2 per cent which the learned Appellate Authority has calculated at Rs. 6 as a round figure, this being slightly in excess of the exact amount.

There is no doubt that in 1953 certain improvements were carried. The shop originally had a verandah, the front of which simply had an archway, and in 1953 doors and a lintel were fitted so as to make the area of the verandah completely enclosed in the shop. The learned Rent Controller considered that these improvements justified the addition of Rs. 5 to the basic rent for the purpose of calculating the fair rent.

The learned Appellate Authority was undoubtedly right in holding that Section 4 makes no provision for adding anything to the rent paid during the 12 months prior to the 1st of January, 1939, on account of improvements made thereafter, the only permissible increase being that provided in Sub-section (5).

However, the learned Counsel for the landlord has urged that Section 5 of the Act should also be taken into account. This reads:

When the fair rent of a building or rented land has been fixed tinder Section 4, no further increase in such fair rent shall be permissible except in cases where some addition, improvement or alteration has been carried out at the landlord''s expense and if the building or rented land is then in the occupation of a tenant, at his request:

Provided that the fair rent as increased under this section shall not exceed the fair rent payable under this Act for a similar building or rented land in the same locality with such addition, improvement or alteration and it shall not be chargeable until such addition, improvement or alteration has been completed;

Provided further that any dispute between, the landlord and tenant in regard to any increase claimed under this section shall be decided by the Controller:

Provided further that nothing in this section shall apply to any periodical increment of rent accruing under any subsisting agreement entered into before the first day of January, 1939.

It is contended that when the fair rent has been fixed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4, it is then open to the Rent Controller in .1 the same proceedings to take account of and add to the fair rent something extra on account of an improvement carried out at the landlord''s expense and at the tenant''s request.

On the other hand it is contended on behalf of the tenant that Section 5 can only refer to any improvements or additions carried out after the fixation of the fair rent u/s 4.

This point never appears to have been raised before, and my own impression is that the contention of the learned Counsel for the tenant is correct. u/s 4 the basic rent is to be determined and then the fair rent fixed with the permissible addition, and I cannot see how an addition referred to in Section 5 can possibly be taken into account in arriving at the basic rent u/s 4, which lays down specific principles on which this is to be determined. Moreover if Section 5 referred to improvements made before proceedings taken by either landlord or tenant u/s 4 for the determination of the fair rent, the first proviso in Section 5 would become meaningless. The words ''and it shall not be chargeable until such addition, improvement or alteration has been completed'' can only possibly refer to improvements or alterations carried out after the determination of fair rent u/s 4. I thus consider there is no ground for interfering with the order of the learned Appellate Authority and dismiss the revision petition, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.