Back
1951 Supreme(Cal) 219
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
LAHIRI, P. N. MUKHERJEE
NIRMAL CHANDRA DUTTA - Appellant
Versus
GOPAL CHANDRA DEY - Respondent
Civil Rule 1746 Of 1950
Decided On : AUGUST 3, 1951
A.K.DUTTA, Ajoy Kumar Basu, N.D.ROY
The standard rent fixed under Section 9 (1) (g) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 takes effect from the month next after the date of the application for standardization of rent, unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying any alteration of this normal date.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - STANDARD RENT - ADJUSTMENT OF EXCESS PAYMENTS - ACT OF 1948 AND ACT OF 1950 - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 3, 7, 9, 10 AND 17 OF THE ACT OF 1950 - STANDARD RENT FIXED UNDER SECTION 9 (1) (G) - DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF STANDARD RENT - ADJUSTMENT OF EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM APRIL 1950.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant filed an application before the Rent Controller for standardization of rent and adjustment of excess payments made on account of rent. The Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 45/- per month from September 1949 and allowed consequential adjustment of all excess payments against future rents. On appeal, the District Judge fixed the standard rent at Rs. 51/10/- per month from 1-4-1950 and allowed adjustment of excess payments at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month against future rents.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller was correct and that the date of commencement of the standard rent should be October 1949. The court also held that the tenant was entitled to adjustment of excess payments from April 1950 at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month.
Issues: 1. Whether the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller was correct? 2. Whether the date of commencement of the standard rent should be October 1949? 3. Whether the tenant was entitled to adjustment of excess payments from April 1950 at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller was correct because it was in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 (1) (g) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. 2. The court held that the date of commencement of the standard rent should be October 1949 because it was the month next after the date of the application for standardization of rent and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying any alteration of this normal date. 3. The court held that the tenant was entitled to adjustment of excess payments from April 1950 at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month because the Act of 1950 did not authorize any refund and/or adjustment with effect from before the date of its commencement, namely, 31-3-1950, or in respect of the rent of any month prior to April 1950.
Final Decision: The court made the Rule absolute in part and modified the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge to the extent that the 'standard rent', fixed at Rs. 51/10/- per month is given effect from October 1949 except for purposes of refund and/or adjustment under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (for which purposes it will have effect from 1/4/1950, as indicated above), and excess payments are ordered to be adjusted at the rate of Rs. 10. 00 per month against future rents.
( 1 ) THIS Rule has been obtained by the tenant petitioner and it arises out of a proceeding started by him for standardisation of rent and adjustment of excess payments, made on account of rent, against future rents. In the said proceedings the tenant-petitioner also claimed refund of selami, alleged to have been paid by him to the landlord opposite party, and prayed also for imposition of penalty upon the latter for accepting such selami.
( 2 ) THE tenancy in question was in respect of a shop room on the ground-floor of Premises No. 1 Sadananda Road in the south suburbs of Calcutta and the contractual rent was Rs. 120/-p. m. The premises were constructed in June 1949 and the disputed shop-room was first let out in July 1949.
( 3 ) ON 20-9-1949, the tenant filed his application before the Rent Controller, Calcutta, for standardisation of rent and the other reliefs mentioned above, and the said application was registered as Case No. 2433c of 1949. There followed the usual inspection by the Inspector and, thereafter, there was also a personal inspection by the Rent Controller himself and, eventually, the Rent Controller by his order, dated 21-1-1950 found against the applicant on the question of the alleged payment of selami and, upon such finding, dismissed his claim for refund and rejected his prayer for imposition of penalty on the landlord. The Rent Controller, however, by his aforesaid order, gave relief to the tenant-petitioner by fixing the standard rent at Rs. 45/- per month and by giving effect to it from September 1949 and allowing consequential adjustment of all excess payments, made by the tenant, against future rents.
( 4 ) FROM the above decision of the Rent Controller two appeals were taken -- one (No. 186 of 1950) by the tenant, filed on the 6-2-1950, and the other (No. 220 of 1950) by the landlord, filed on the 18-2-1950, -- to the learned District Judge of 24-Parganas. The landlord's appeal was directed against the reduction of rent and the granting of adjustment of alleged excess payments; the tenant's appeal challenged the refusal of reliefs in the matter of the alleged selami.
( 5 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge, who heard both the above appeals, dismissed the tenant's appeal in toto, holding, inter alia, that the alleged payment of selami had not been proved. The landlord's appeal, however, was allowed in part on the finding that, upon the materials on record, the standard rent should be fixed at Rs. 51/10/- per month under Section 9 (1) (g), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, read with Section 17 (3), thereof with effect from 1-4-1950 and adjustment of excess payments should be made on that basis "at the rate not exceeding Rs. 10/-per month" against future rents. Against this decision of the learned Subordinate Judge the tenant-petitioner has obtained the present Rule.
( 6 ) ON behalf of the tenant-petitioner three contentions have been urged by Mr. Dutta, namely: (1) that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of selami is erroneous, (2) that the learned Subordinate Judge is wrong in fixing the standard rent under Section 9 (1) (g) of the Act of 1950 and in fixing the amount thereof at Rs. 51/10/- per month, and (3) that the learned Subordinate Judge's order giving effect to the standard rent only from 1-4-1950 and allowing adjustment of excess payments on that basis is wrong.
( 7 ) THE first contention raises a pure question of fact, not usually open to this court for consideration in revision. But, even apart from that, the conclusion of the Rent Controller on this point, which has been affirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal, appears to us to be the only reasonable conclusion on othe materials produced in this case. That conclusion must, therefore, stand and this contention of the petitioner must fail. The petitioner's first contention is, accordingly, overruled.
( 8 ) BEFORE proceeding to deal with the p
