2009 Supreme(Gau) 934
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ranjan Gogoi and Brojendra Prasad Katakey, JJ.
Surajmal Mangilal - Appellants
Vs.
Legal heirs of deceased Kanhaiyalal Agarwal - Respondent
Decided On : 23.12.2009
Headnote:
Constitution of india, 1950 - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure ,1908 - Section 10 - Assam Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1969 - Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Section2(e) , 3 and 4 – Land - Standard rent - Determination of fair rent - Instant proceeding has been registered on basis of an application filed under Section 227 of Constitution by defendant-tenant against determination of fair rent at instance of landlord and giving effect thereto from date of filing of application - Initially, determination of fair rent and effect thereto from date of filing of application by landlord was made by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 1, Dhubri of order dated - Principle contention advanced before learned Single Judge hearing application under Article 227 of the Constitution was to effect that an order fixing fair rent cannot be given retrospective operation - Learned Single Judge has taken a prima facie view that such an interpretation may cause prejudice to landlord and further that general principle of law is that a case should be decided with effect from date of cause of action - It will be necessary to set out here under provisions which defines standard rent - Section 3 of Act which deals with fair rent and Section 4 of Act which deals with procedure for determination of fair rent – Held, an interpretation which would determine rights of both parties i.e., landlord and tenant on date of accrual of rights/entitlement rather than an uncertain date of courts order would be a more reasonable understanding of provisions of the Act - Principle that law always intends what is reasonable and fair to both the parties would strongly tilt Court opinion to effect that determination of fair rent can be made from date of filing of application under Section4(2) - There is one connected aspect of matter which would require our attention - In course of extensive deliberations that had taken place, a question has been raised as to whether determination of fair rent from an anterior date even if it be date of filing of application, will not make tenant a defaulter inasmuch as such determination from an anterior date would determine rent lawfully due from tenant from such earlier date - Giving effect to a determination of fair rent from the date of filing of application will not transpose order of court to an anterior point of time - Tenant cannot be labelled as a defaulter on any date earlier than date of the order of court determining fair rent - Giving effect to said order from an anterior date will only create an obligation on tenant to pay rent from said anterior date as arrear rent – Order accordingly.
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. The instant proceeding has been registered on the basis of an application filed under Section 227 of the Constitution by the defendant-tenant against the determination of fair rent, at the instance of the landlord, and giving effect thereto from the date of filing of the application. Initially, the determination of fair rent and effect thereto from the date of filing of the application by the landlord was made by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 1, Dhubri of the order dated 25.4.2000 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 19/1003. On appeal by the tenant, the said order has been confirmed by the learned District Judge, Dhubri by the order dated 9.2.2004 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2003.
2. The principle contention advanced before the learned Single Judge hearing the application under Article 227 of the Constitution was to the effect that an order fixing fair rent cannot be given retrospective operation. The learned Single Judge has taken a prima facie view that such an interpretation may cause prejudice to the landlord and further that the general principle of law is that a case should be decided with effect from the date of cause of action. However, noticing; two judgments of this Court delivered in Balaram Sarkar v. Sankar Prasad Roy 1987 (2) GLR 161 and in Hanskumar Jain and Ors. v. Shri Jadunandan Sarma 1988 (2) GLJ 292, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the matter should be referred to a Division Bench for adjudication of the following question:
Whether fair rent fixed by the court below in a proceeding under Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 shall have retrospective or prospective application?
This is how the matter has been placed before us.
3. Before proceeding any further, it will be necessary to set; out here under the provisions of Section2(e) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, ("the Act"), which defines 'standard rent'; Section 3 of the Act which deals with 'fair rent' and Section 4 of the Act; which deals with the procedure for determination of fair rent:
Section 2(e): "standard rent" in relation to any house means the rent calculated on the basis of annual payment of an amount equal to seven and half per cent of the aggregate amount of the estimated cost of construction and the market price of the land together with the total municipal taxes payable in respect of the house and urban immovable property tax under the Assam Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1969 (Assam Act XI of 1969), monthly rent shall be equal to one-twelfth of the annual payment so calculated:
Provided that in fixing the standard rent of any multi-storeyed building, the market value of the land shall be taken into consideration only once to be apportioned in between the different floors of such building on the basis of the areas of each floor:
Provided further that in fixing the standard rent of each floor or any part thereof of such multi-storeyed building, the estimated cost of construction of such floor or any part thereof, as the case may be, and the proportionate market value of the land calculated in the manner stated hereinbefore, shall be taken into consideration.
3. Fair rent.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, no landlord shall be entitled to charge rent for any house at a figure higher than the standard rent.
(2) If at any time after five years from the date on which a house is in continuous occupation of a tenant, the market price of the land and estimated cost of construction of the house increases by more than twenty-five per cent on the basis of the value of land and cost of construction of the house on the date of preceding fixation of fair rent, then the landlord shall be entitled to have monthly rent increased by an amount not exceeding one-twelfth of the seven and half per cent of the increase in the market price of the land and cost of construction, on the date of preceding fixation of fair rent, from the dates a