ORDER : - This is an application in revision arising out of proceedings for declaration of the standard rent of certain premises, and the facts are that the opponent company passed a rent note in favour of the petitioners who are the landlords on 18-3-1909, in respect of certain premises. The rent note granted a lease for 20 years in favour of the opponent company and the rent fixed under the rent note was Rs.600. The rent note gave the option to the opponent company to renew the lease for a further period of 20 years on the same rent and the opponent company availed itself of that option and the lease was renewed for a further period of 20 years.

In 1949 when the lease expired, the opponent company became a statutory tenant and was protected from eviction by the Rent Act. It appears that when subletting was permissible the opponent company sublet the premises. The position of the premises when the rent note was executed in 1909 was that they consisted of an open plot of land with nine sheds built on it and the opponent company built other structures besides the nine sheds on this open plot of land and these structures were let out to various sub-tenants, and the allegation of the petitioners was that the opponent company was recovering from its subtenants Rs.1,458 as the rent and therefore the petitioners applied that the standard rent was not Rs.600 but was much more than that and the Court should fix the standard rent. Both the Courts below have held that the standard rent is Rs.600 and the landlords are not entitled to any increase.

2. Now, under S.5 of the Rent Act "standard rent" is defined-and I am quoting the material portion of the sub-section-as rent at which the premises were let on 1-9-1940. The view of the Courts below was that on 1-9-1940, when the premises were let by the petitioners to the opponent company the rent was Rs.600 and therefore that was the standard rent. Mr. Tarkundes contention is that the standard rent is not Rs.600, but in order to fix the standard rent what should be taken into consideration is the rent that the occupying tenant were paying on 1-9-1940. Mr. Tarkunde says that the opponent company was not in occupation of the premises, that the sub-tenants were in occupation, they were paying a certain rent on 1-9-1940, and that is the rent which must be fixed as the standard rent.

It is also urged by Mr. Tarkunde that the scheme of the Rent Act is that there should be only one standard rent and the standard rent is in relation to premises and not in relation to what the tenant pays or the landlord receives, and it is urged that there could not be one standard rent as between the petitioners and the opponent company and another standard rent as between the opponent company and its sub-tenants. Therefore, to avoid this anomaly the proper way to determine the standard rent is to find out who is the actual tenant in occupation on 1-9-1940, to determine what rent he was paying on that day, and that rent would constitute the standard rent.

It is further urged that the Rent Act was passed not in order to protect tenants who ceased to be tenants and became landlords, but to protect persons actually in occupation of premises, and therefore the tenant in this case who had to be protected was the sub-tenant and the rent that he paid must be determined for the purpose of fixing the standard rent and prevent that standard rent being increased.

In my opinion it is clear that the standard rent must be fixed as between the immediate landlord and the immediate tenant. In this case the petitioners as the landlords have made an application against their immediate tenant the opponent company, and the question that is to be decided is, what is the standard rent which the immediate tenant is liable to pay, and the immediate tenant is not liable to pay any higher standard rent than the rent he paid on 1-9-1940. There is no doubt as to what rent he was paying on 1-9-1940, and the law prevents the landlord from rec