Back
1953 Supreme(Cal) 1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CHAKRABARTI, SINHA
CHANDMUL AGARWALLA - Appellant
Versus
LACHMINARAYAN DALMIA - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 1399 Of 1952
Decided On : JANUARY 05, 1953
ATUL CHANDRA GUPTA, Bijan Bihari Das Gupta, Nikhil Chandra Talukdar, SUBODH KUMAR BHATTACHARYA
The principle applicable to the valuation of applications for standardization of rent is that the true valuation would be an amount equivalent to the amount of rent payable for the year next preceding the presentation of the application, in other words, twelve times the monthly contractual rent, when the rent has been uniform and, in other cases, the total of the actual rent for the twelve months.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - STANDARDIZATION OF RENT - VALUATION OF APPLICATIONS - PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE - SECTION 9 (1) (G) - APPLICABILITY - CONSTRUCTION OF SCHEDULE A AND SECTION 9 (1) (E) - COMPOSITE TENANCY - METHOD OF FIXING STANDARD RENT.
Fact of the Case:
Twelve Rules were issued in respect of five tenancies, each in respect of one or more rooms in premises No. 124 Chattaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, and all held under the same landlord. The tenants of all the tenancies made applications for standardization of the rent and the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at certain amounts. Neither the landlord nor the tenants were satisfied and both parties preferred appeals. The appellate Court varied the rent to a certain extent in favor of the landlord, but did not vary it to an extent sufficient to satisfy him. As the rent was increased, naturally, the tenants were also dissatisfied with the decision of the appellate Court. Thereafter, both sides moved the High Court under Section 32 (4), Rent Control Act.
Finding of the Court:
1. The principle applicable to the valuation of applications for standardization of rent is that the true valuation would be an amount equivalent to the amount of rent payable for the year next preceding the presentation of the application, in other words, twelve times the monthly contractual rent, when the rent has been uniform and, in other cases, the total of the actual rent for the twelve months. 2. Section 9 (1) (g) of the Rent Control Act applies to cases where the premises concerned were not in existence in 1941 at all. 3. Schedule A and Section 9 (1) (e) of the Rent Control Act exhaust between themselves the cases where the premises were in existence in 1941 and were either let or not let. 4. A composite tenancy, consisting of rooms in existence in 1941 and rooms constructed after 1941 but before 31-12-1949, must be dealt with under the residuary provision contained in Section 9 (1) (g) of the Rent Control Act.
Issues: 1. What is the principle applicable to the valuation of applications for standardization of rent? 2. Which provision of the Rent Control Act applies to cases where the premises concerned were not in existence in 1941 at all? 3. How are Schedule A and Section 9 (1) (e) of the Rent Control Act to be construed? 4. How is the standard rent to be fixed for a composite tenancy, consisting of rooms in existence in 1941 and rooms constructed after 1941 but before 31-12-1949?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle applicable to the valuation of applications for standardization of rent is that the true valuation would be an amount equivalent to the amount of rent payable for the year next preceding the presentation of the application, in other words, twelve times the monthly contractual rent, when the rent has been uniform and, in other cases, the total of the actual rent for the twelve months. This principle is based on the analogy of Section 7 (xi), Court-fees Act, and Section 8, Court-fees Act, which lay down that except in certain cases, of which the present case is not one, the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and that for the purpose of court-fees shall be the same. 2. Section 9 (1) (g) of the Rent Control Act applies to cases where the premises concerned were not in existence in 1941 at all. This is because the specific provisions contained in the Rent Act do not contemplate a tenancy composed partly of rooms in existence in 1941 and partly of rooms constructed after 1941 but before 31-12-1949. 3. Schedule A and Section 9 (1) (e) of the Rent Control Act exhaust between themselves the cases where the premises were in existence in 1941 and were either let or not let. Schedule A contemplates a case where the premises concerned were in existence in 1941 and were also let, whether or not any standard rent had previously been fixed. Section 9 (1) (e) contemplates a case where the premises concerned were in existence in 1941, but were either not let at that time, or if let not let at a proper and adequate money rent. 4. A composite tenancy, consisting of rooms in existence in 1941 and rooms constructed after 1941 but before 31-12-1949, must be dealt with under the residuary provision contained in Section 9 (1) (g) of the Rent Control Act. This is because there is no specific provision in the Rent Act which applies to such a tenancy.
Final Decision: 1. Eight of the Rules issued at the instance of the tenants are not competent and are discharged. 2. The remaining four Rules obtained by the tenants and the two Rules obtained by the landlord are made absolute. 3. Cases 327c and 388c are sent back to the appellate Court for a rehearing of the appeals arising out of those cases.
( 1 ) THESE are twelve Rules of a somewhat varied composition. They concern five tenancies, each in respect of one or more rooms in premises No. 124 Chattaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, and all held under the same landlord. The tenants of all the tenancies made applications for standardization of the rent and the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at certain amounts. Neither the landlord nor the tenants were satisfied and both parties preferred appeals. There were thus ten appeals. The appellate Court varied the rent to a certain extent in favour of the landlord, but did not vary it to an extent sufficient to satisfy him. As the rent was increased, naturally, the tenants were also dissatisfied with the decision of the appellate Court. Thereafter, both sides moved this Court under Section 32 (4), Rent Control Act. As there had been two appeals in respect of each tenancy in the Court below, one by the tenant and the other by the landlord, there were ten applications by the tenants. The landlord, however, made only five applications. The tenants obtained Rules on all the ten applications made by them, but the landlord was granted Rules only on two of theirs. There are thus altogether twelve Rules before us.
( 2 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it is necessary to dispose of a preliminary point. sometime ago, these cases were mentioned before us for an order that all of them might be heard together and because of certain observations made by us on that occasion, Mr. Gupta, who appeared on behalf of the tenants, submitted that the competency of the Rules obtained by his clients should be determined first. It appears that in each of the applications made by the tenants, it was stated that the value was "below Rs. 1,000/-". It was on that footing that the tenants went to a learned Judge, sitting singly, and obtained Rules from him. The landlord, on the other hand, valued his applications at twelve times the monthly rent and as the figure thus arrived at exceeded Rs. 2,000/-, he went to a Division Bench. It is well settled that if a Rule is issued by a learned Judge, sitting singly, in a case where, under the distribution of business in this Court, only a Division Bench can exercise Jurisdiction, the Rule issued by the Judge, sitting singly, is not a valid Rule. Accordingly, if the valuation put by the landlord on his applications was the true valuation, the Rules obtained by the tenants must be held to be Rules issued without jurisdiction.
( 3 ) MR. Gupta submitted that while all this might be true, no principle had ever been laid down regarding the method of valuing applications for standardization of rent. He accordingly submitted that we should avail ourselves of the present opportunity to lay down the principle to be followed in valuing applications of this kind and Rules arising out of them.
( 4 ) I have already stated that the tenants did not put down any precise figure as the value of any one of their applications, but merely stated that the value was "below Rs. 1,000/-". I have protested before and must protest again against this method of valuing an application which is of no use whatever. If the valuation has any meaning, and it has undoubtedly much, inasmuch as it determines the jurisdiction of the Court, the petitioner must always set out in his petition the method which he employs for making the valuation and explain how he reaches the figure which he puts down at the head of the petition. To say merely that a particular petition is valued "below Rs. 1,000/-" or "above Rs. 2,000/-" is saying nothing more than that the petitioner wants to go to a learned Judge, sitting singly or that he wants to go to a Division Bench. It would be well for the profession to bear in mind that the valuation of a petition is a matter of practical importance and the petition must always explain the method by which the valuation actually put on the petition was arrived at.
( 5 ) IT is, however, true that the principle applic
