Back
1980 Supreme(Del) 137
High Court Of Delhi
MALIK SINGH - Appellant
Versus
JAGAN NATH BAHL - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal 82 of 1972
Decided On : 05/06/1980
ALAKH KUMAR, ANUP SINGH, R.K.MAKHIJA
The standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller is effective and payable from the specified date, and Section 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which requires a notice to be given for increasing the rent, is not applicable in cases where the landlord obtains an order from the Controller fixing the standard rent above the contractual rate of rent.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - Fixation of Standard Rent - Effective Date - Payment of Rent - Notice of Increase - Interpretation of Sections 8 and 9(7) - Landlord's Entitlement to Raise Contractual Rent.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation against the tenant. The standard rent was fixed by the Rent Controller with effect from a back date, but the tenant continued to pay the contractual rent. The landlord claimed the extra rent from the effective date of the standard rent, while the tenant contended that a notice under Section 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was required to increase the rent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller was effective from the specified date and was also payable from that date. Section 9(7) of the Act allowed the Controller to make the order fixing the standard rent effective from a back date, and this meant that the new standard rent was payable from the effective date. Section 8, which required a notice to be given for increasing the rent, was not applicable in this case because it applied to cases where the landlord wanted to increase the rent without going to the Controller.
Issues: 1. Whether the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller was effective from the specified date and was also payable from that date. 2. Whether Section 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which required a notice to be given for increasing the rent, was applicable in this case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 9(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act allowed the Controller to make the order fixing the standard rent effective from a back date, and this meant that the new standard rent was payable from the effective date. 2. Section 8, which required a notice to be given for increasing the rent, was not applicable in this case because it applied to cases where the landlord wanted to increase the rent without going to the Controller.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the lower appellate Court. The landlord was entitled to recover the standard rent from the effective date specified in the Rent Controller's order, and the tenant was liable to pay the standard rent from that date.
( 1 ) SHRI Jagan Nath Behl, respondent in this Court instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,205. 41 against S. Malik Singh, appellant here as arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The arrears of rent were claimed for the period 12th May, 1960 to 31st March, 1966, because Shri P. K. Bahri, Additional Rent Controller had fixed the standard rent of the premises at Rs. 50. 00 per month by an order made on 6th June) 1967. But, this standard rent was made effective from 12th May, 1960. Before the date of the judgment, Shria. P. Chaudhery, Additional Rent Controller had already passed an eviction order on 1st April, 1966 against the tenant. The tenant was actually evicted on 8th May, 1969. Undoubtedly, before the standard rent was fixed, the tenant was paying only Rs. 10. 00 per month. . The landlord, therefore, filed the suit for recovery of the extra rent for the period 12th May, 1960 to 31st March, 1966, and for damages for use and occupation after the eviction order became operative; he claimed damages equivalent to the standard rent for the period 1st April, 1966 to 8th May, 1969.
( 2 ) THE suit was tried by Shri H. S. Bakshi, Subordinate Judge Ist Class, who byjudgment and decree dated 30th April, 1971 allowed the claim of the plaintiff as regards the damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 per month, but he disallowed the claim for extra rent for the period 12th May, 1960 to 31st March, 1966. One of the questions raised was as to whether the full claim was within limitation. It was held by the trial Court that the suit could not be filed before the standard rent had been fixed, so the claim was not barred by time. But it was held that the landlord could not claim anything above the contractual rate of rent till he had given a notice increasing the rent. Consequently, although the standard rent had been raised to Rs. 50. 00 per month, which was well above the rate at which the tenant was paying the rent, the landlord was disentitled to recover the amount unless he actually raised the contracted rate of rent by a notice. On this ground the suit was only partly decreed.
( 3 ) BOTH the landlord as well as the tenant filed appeals which were heard by Shri N. C. Kochhar. Additional District Judge. The landlord s appeal has been allowed and the full claim has been decreed and the tenant s appeal was rejected. Now the tenant has applied to this Court to claim that nothing more than Rs. 10. 00 per month is payable and the decision of the trial Court is right as far as the claim for rent is concerned, but the decision of both Courts below is wrong as far as the rate of damages is concerned.
( 4 ) HAVING set out the circumstances in which this case has come before this Court, I must at once say that the question before me presents some unusual problems. The Rent Control Act allows the landlord to recover rent from the tenant but nothing more than the standard rent. If a landlord lets out property and the contractual rent happens to be more than the standard rent then, the landlord is disentitled to claim the rent over and above the standard rent and the contract between the parties has to be read as a contract letting out the property at the standard rent. The Act is silent about any landlord letting out the property below the standard rent. There is no bar to the landlord letting out property at a rate of rent for below the standard rent. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that this is a case in which property was being enjoyed by the tenant at Rs. 10. 00 per month and even if the standard rent is raised to Rs. 50. 00 per month, there has to be a positive act by the landlord to raise the rate of rent to Rs. 50. 00. The mere fixing of the standard rent at Rs. 50. 00 per month does not mean that the tenant is obliged to pay the rent at that rate. According to him, the rate of rent continues to be the contractual rent, i. e. , Rs. 10. 00 per month.
( 5 ) THIS point rega
