Sohanlal Doodwala vs Benode Kumar Chamaria

P.N. Mookerjee and S.K. Chakravarti, JJ.—This Rule arises out of a proceeding for fixation of fair rent under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The application was obviously made u/s 10 of the said Act.

There was between the parties, in respect of this very premises, a previous proceeding for fixation of standard rent under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. In that proceeding, the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 1,676-14-0 per month. The learned Rent Controller, accordingly, fixed the fair rent at the said figure u/s 8(l)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and did not give effect to the tenant''s claim that he was entitled to have the fair rent fixed at Rs. 1,350 by reason of a subsequent agreement between the parties.

On appeal, the learned appellate officer while accepting that the fair rent of the premises, in view of the above facts and the above statutory provision, should be Rs. 1,676-14-0 per month, as found by the Rent Controller, has allowed the appeal and dismissed the landlord''s application before the Rent Controller on the ground that, in view of the aforesaid Standardization under the 1950 Act, this application for fixation of fair rent does not lie and, secondly, the same is also barred by reason of the above agreement between the parties.

We are unable to accept any of the above two reasons of the learned appellate officer. The right to apply for fixation of fair rent is given u/s 10 of the 1956 Statute. It is true that, when such an application is made, the fair rent has to be fixed in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Act and u/s 8(l)(b), once the standard rent was fixed under the 1950 Act, that would be the fair rent for purposes of the 1956 Act. That, however, does not mean that the application for fixation of fair rent under the 1956 Act would not be maintainable. It only means that on such application, in such cases, the fair rent would be fixed at the figure of the standard rent under the 1950 Act. The first reason given by the learned appellate officer, accordingly, goes.

As to the second reason too, it is quite clear that the fair rent does not depend upon agreement between the parties and, for purposes of fixation of fair rent, this agreement will be irrelevant.

In the circumstances, the alleged agreement cannot influence the decision of the Court in the matter of fixation of fair rent.

We would, accordingly, make this Rule absolute, set aside the order of the learned appellate officer and restore that of the Rent Controller.

At the same time, we must make it clear that in spite of this order it will be open to the tenant opposite party to avail himself of the alleged agreement between the parties, reducing the rent to Rs. 1,350 per month in any appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.

The Rule is disposed of as above. 9. There will be no order for costs.