The landlord's application for fixation of fair rent under Clauses 4 and 5 of the Rent Control Order must contain specific pleading about the year of construction of the disputed house, whether it was constructed before or after 1st April, 1940, and whether it is occupied wholly or mainly for residential or non-residential purposes.

JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---Since both the writ petitions involve common questions of law, the same have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts relating to Writ Petition No. 1656 of 1989 are that the petitioner (for short "the landlord") let out the first floor of house No. 83 commonly known as Sheladwale House, situated at Balapur, Tahsil Balapur, District Akola, to the respondent (for short "the tenant") some where in the year 1973-74 on monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. On 17-2-1987 the landlord moved an application under Clauses 4 and 5 of the C.P. and Bear Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short "the Rent Control Order") before the Rent Controller, Balapur, against the tenant praying therein that the rent payable by the tenant at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month was low and fair rent at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month be fixed excluding the Municipal taxes. The said application was contested by the tenant and it was submitted that the rent paid at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month was not law. The tenant also set up the defence that the suit house was constructed before 50 to 60 years and was very old. In this view of the matter, the tenant submitted that the application filed by the landlord deserves to be dismissed. The Rent Controller, Balapur, held the inquiry and after hearing the parties by its order dated 28-12-1987 dismissed the application filed by the landlord. The Rent Controller found that the landlord has failed to prove that the rent of the premises in question was insufficient and, therefore, the question of determining the fair rent did not arise. The landlord carried an appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector. The Resident Deputy by his order dated 9-3-1989 maintained the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal filed by the landlord. The order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector dated 9-3-1989 affirming the order of the Rent Controller dated 30-11-1987 rejecting the application filed by the landlord for fixation of fair rent is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. The brief facts relating to Writ Petition No. 1657 of 1989 are that the petitioner (for short the landlord") let out block No. 2 of house No. 83 commonly known as Sheladwada House, situated at Balapur, Tahsil Balapur, District Akola to the respondent (for short "the tenant") in the year 1968-69 for monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. The landlord moved an application on 1-12-1986 before the Rent Controller, Balapur under Clauses 4 and 5 of the Rent Controller Order against the tenant for fixation of fair rent at the rate of 500/- per month excluding municipal taxes. The said application was contested by the tenant and it was submitted that the agreed rent was as per the market rate of rent and the house being very old, the rent being paid by the tenant is fair rent and no increase in the rent is warranted. The Rent Controller held the inquiry and after hearing the parties dismissed the application filed by the landlord and held that the agreed rate of rent at the rate of 45/- per month was not insufficient and therefore the question of fixation of fair rent did not arise. The order passed by the Rent Controller date 15-10-1987 was challenged before the Resident Deputy Collector, Akola, who affirmed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal by his order dated 9-3-1989 and both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the writ petitions.

5. Mr. Mehadia, learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that on the date of filing of the application Clauses 6 and 7 of the Rent Control Order could not have been considered to be on statute book because they were declared unconstitutional by this Court and, therefore, there was no mention in the application about the year in which the premises were constructed and the application was therefore required to be considered in the light of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document