The provisions of Section 9(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, apply to premises wholly or substantially constructed after 31-12-1949, regardless of whether they are part of a proposed building that has not been completed.

K. C. DAS GUPTA, J.: - These two Rules arising out of the same application raise an interesting point of law whether the provisions of S.9(1)(f), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, are applicable for the purpose of fixing standard rent under that Act when the premises for which standardisation is sought, though constructed after 31-12-1949, form part of a proposed building which has not been completed.

2. The tenant petitioner filed an application for fixation of rent in respect of one shop room which was numbered as shop room no.4, at P.30A, Kalakar Street. This room is one of the 8 rooms which have been constructed after 31-12-1949, on the ground floor of a proposed building. The proposal according to the evidence was to erect a six storeyed structure. It appears that some other rooms on the first floor have been only partially constructed. The Inspector who was asked by the court to make an enquiry as regards the costs of construction reported that the costs of construction could not be ascertained in view of the inability of the opposite party to show details of work done to the building regarding its plinth and as the opposite party was unable to give vouchers and other things necessary for the ascertainment of costs. It appeared that thereupon the parties agreed that the court should fix the standard rent in accordance with the previsions of S.9(1)(g) of the said Act. On applying those provisions, the learned Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs.103/-. On appeal, the learned Judge also applied the provisions of S.9(1)(g) but held that there was no scope for reduction of rent from the agreed rent and that the tenant had not shown anything so as to justify fixing of standard rent at a lower rate. He held that the agreed rent was just and fair and fixed that amount, viz., Rs.250/- per month, as the standard rent.

3. Obviously if in law the provisions of S.9(1)(f) apply, the court has no right to apply S.9(1)(g) merely because the parties have agreed that S.9(1)(g) should be applied. The question to be considered is whether the provisions of S.9(1)(f) do apply. The mere fact that the parties did not or could not adduce sufficient evidence to enable the court to apply the provisions of S.9(1)(f) did not make the provisions of cl.(g) applicable. Clause (g), it may be mentioned, is in these words,

"where no provisions of this Act for fixing standard rent apply to any premises, by determining the standard rent at a rate which is fair and reasonable."

To say that because the parties did not or could not adduce sufficient evidence for fixation of standard rent under any of the previous clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f), the court will apply Cl.(g) is to put a premium on a refusal to adduce evidence and to defeat the entire scheme of the Act that under certain circumstances the special provisions set out in Cls.(a) to (f) will apply and only in circumstances other than those, the provisions of Cl.(g) will apply. It is, in my judgment, entirely unreasonable to read into the words "where no provisions of this Act for fixing standard rent apply to any premises", the words "where there is no sufficient evidence for the application of other provisions of this Act."

4. This brings us to the crucial question in this case, viz., whether the provisions of cl.(f) apply. Admittedly the premises in question have been wholly constructed after 31-12-1949. Prima facie, therefore, the provisions of cl.(f) which are in these words,

"Where any premises have been wholly or substantially constructed after the 31st day of December, 1949, by fixing the standard rent payable for one year at a rate equal to six per centum of the actual cost of construction as determined by the Controller added to the market price as on the 31st day of December, 1946, of the land included in the premises or to the market price of the said land as on the date of the completion of the construction, whichever is less:

Provided that wher