SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(Del) 151

High Court Of Delhi
DEWAN ANAND KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
SHAMA MAGAZINE - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 30D of 1966
Decided On : 05/21/1971

Advocates Appeared:
K.N.Kataria, R.M.LAL, S.N.CHOPRA

The period of limitation for filing an application for fixation of standard rent under section 12 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is two years from the date on which the premises were let to the tenant. Section 6(2)(a) of the Act does not postpone the starting point of limitation or stop the running of the limitation.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL - STANDARD RENT - LIMITATION - APPLICATION FOR FIXATION OF STANDARD RENT - WHETHER WITHIN TIME - SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 6(2)(A) AND 12 OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958.

Fact of the Case:

The tenant applied for fixation of standard rent of the premises on 20th July 1962, under sections 9 and 12 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The landlords contested the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The Controller dismissed the application as barred by time. The Rent Control Tribunal reversed the order of the Controller and remanded the case to the Controller for consideration of the application on merits.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the application for fixation of standard rent was barred by time. The court interpreted section 6(2)(a) of the Act and held that it only raised a conclusive presumption as to the meaning of "standard rent" in such circumstances. It did not say that the Controller shall be deemed to have fixed the standard rent in such a case so as to prevent an application from being made within the period of limitation prescribed by section 12.

Issues: 1. Whether the application for fixation of standard rent was within time? 2. Whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the application for fixation of standard rent was barred by time. The court interpreted section 6(2)(a) of the Act and held that it only raised a conclusive presumption as to the meaning of "standard rent" in such circumstances. It did not say that the Controller shall be deemed to have fixed the standard rent in such a case so as to prevent an application from being made within the period of limitation prescribed by section 12. 2. The court held that there was no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application. The court held that the tenant had not pleaded or proved any reasons whatever for not making the application from 1st April, 1961 till 20th July, 1962.

Final Decision: The court set aside the decision of the Rent Control Tribunal and ordered the application of the respondent for the fixation of the standard rent to be dismissed with costs throughout.

V. S. DESHPANDE, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants are the landlords of the premises the construction of which was finished in December 1953 and which were let out to the tenant with effect from 1st January, 1954. The tenant applied for the fixation of standard rent of the premises on 20th July 1962. under sections 9 and 12 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter called the Act ). In column IS (a) of the application, the tenant stated as follows :-

"under section 6 (2) of the Act the agreed rent continued in. force for a period of seven years up to 31st December, 1960. The applicant was prevented from filing the application for standard rent uptil 31st December. 1960 as on that date the seven years period expired. This application is being submitted within two years of the time when the petitioner became entitled to submit the application for fixation of standard rent. The application is being submitted within two years of the arising of the cause of action on 1st January, 1961. The applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application earlier. "

( 2 ) IN reply the landlords stated that the contentions of the tenant were wholly unfounded and incorrect. They prayed that the application be dismissed with costs. Before the Controller the tenant argued that his application was within time while the respondents contested the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The MAGAZINE Controller did not agree with the tenant that no application lor fixation of standard rent could be tiled within the first seven years from the of the letting of the premises. He, therefore, dismissed the application as barred by time.

( 3 ) THE Rent Control Tribunal also agreed that sections 6 and 12 of the Act did not create any legal bar. to the filing of such an application within the period of two years from the date of the letting as that was the period of limitation fixed for such an application. The Tribunal however thought that the impression created was that for this period of seven years the tenant could not move for fixation of standard rent at a rate lower than the agreed rate and that it was a fit case where the proviso to section 12 of the Act should be invoked to treat the tenant s application as being within time. On this reasoning the Tribunal reversed the order of the Controller and remanded the case to the Controller for consideration of the application on merits. This second appeal by the landlords is against this order of the Tribunal.

( 4 ) THE sole question for decision is whether the application for the fixation of standard rent is within time. Under section 12 (b) (ii) of the Act a tenant may file an application to the Controller for fixing the standard rent of the premises within two years from the date on which the premises were let to the tenant. But the proviso to section 12 which is important for the decision of this case is as follows :-

"provided that the Controller may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of two years, if he is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application in time. "section 6 ( 1 ) lays down the criteria for the fixation of the standard rent in different circumstances. Section 6 (2) (a) which is material for consideration in this case is as follows :-

"notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),- (a) in the case of any premises, whether residential or not, constructed on or after 2nd day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955, the annual rent calculated with reference to the rent at which the premises were let for the month of March, 1958, or if they were not so let. with reference to the rent at which they were last let out. shall be deemed to be the standard rent for a period of seven years from the date of the completion of the construction of such premises:. . . . . . "reading section 12 (b) (ii) and its proviso with section 6 (2) (a) of the Act, we have to consider whether the ap






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top