A court cannot delegate its judicial function to any other authority, including a valuer, to determine the quantum of rent in a lease renewal dispute.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals being inter-related were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) M/s. Sudera Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'sudera') has filed a suit for eviction against Jute Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'jute Corporation') inter alia, on the ground of expiry of the period of lease dated 5th December, 1970. Admittedly, the said indenture of lease contained a renewal clause which is in the following terms :--"in case the Lessee shall be desirous of obtaining a renewed lease of the demised premises for a further period of ten years and of such desire shall give at least two months' previous notice in writing to the Lessor and shall have duly paid the rent and complied with the (sic) carried all the covenants and conditions herein contained and on the part of the Lessee to be paid observed and performed then and in such case the Lessor shall at the cost and expense of the lessee grant to the Lessee a renewed lease of the demised premises for a further term of ten years on the same terms and conditions herein contained except as to rent as may be mutually agreed and that in the renewed lease there shall be no covenant for renewal. "

( 3 ) THE Jute Corporation has exercised the option to renew the lease within the stipulated period. It is, however, admitted that no mutual agreement could be reached as regard the quantum of rent.

( 4 ) IN the aforementioned situation, Jute Corporation also filed a Suit for specific performance of contract. Before the learned trial Judge, five applications had been filed including one by Sudera for passing a decree under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules for a summary decree. The second application was made by Jute Corporation for grant of leave to continue to deposit month by month by the 15th of every succeeding month, a sum of Rs. 69,642. 23 being the sum equivalent to the rent payable by the defendant in respect of the suit premises. When arguments in relation to the aforementioned two applications were going on, Sudera filed a third application for appointment of a valuer for the purpose of computing reasonable market rent. A fourth application was filed by Jute Corporation directing issuance of a mandatory injunction upon the plaintiff to forthwith restore air-conditioning services in the suit premises. We are not concerned with the fifth application herein which was filed by Jute Corporation for extension of time for filing written statement.

( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge by reason of the impugned order rejected the application of Jute Corporation for leave to deposit as also the application to restore essential supply of air-conditioning. The learned trial Judge also rejected Sudera's application for appointment of a valuer for fixing the quantum of rent. Both the parties, therefore, had preferred these appeals against the aforementioned orders.

( 6 ) KEEPING in view the stand taken by Sudera before the learned trial Judge it now does not lie in its mouth to contend that he is entitled to a decree for eviction.

( 7 ) IT has been conceded that in view of the decision of this Court in Martin Bum Limited v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. reported in (1988) 2 Cal LJ 416, in the event of disagreement of the quantum of rent between the plaintiff and the defendant in a suit for eviction on the ground of expiry of the period of lease containing renewal clause, the Court has the requisite jurisdiction to fix the proper rent.

( 8 ) TWO questions, therefore, arise for consideration in these appeals: 1. Whether the learned trial Judge ought to have appointed a valuer for determination of the quantum of rent? 2. Whether Sudera would be compelled by mandatory injunction to restore the air-conditioning as prayed for by Jute Corporation?

( 9 ) THE learned trial Judge rejected the application of Sudera for appointment of valuer on the short ground that he had no jurisdiction to