Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Ranawat,Sharma
NANAGRAM - Appellant
Versus
GHINSILAL - Respondent
Misc. Writ Appln. 12 Of 1950
Decided On : 09/24/1951
JAIPUR RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1947 - SECTION 1(B)(I) - STANDARD RENT - INTERPRETATION - RENT PAYABLE ON 1ST SEPTEMBER, 1939 - PREMISES ON HIRE ON THAT DAY - BASIC RENT FOR FIXING STANDARD RENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, owners of a shop, sought to increase the rent of the shop occupied by the opposite party, Ghinsi Lal, to Rs. 137/8 per month, claiming that the standard rent should be twice the rate at which the premises were let on 1st September 1939, plus an additional amount for improvements made by them. The Rent Controller determined the standard rent to be Rs. 130/- per month plus Rs. 2/8 per month for improvements. On appeal, the Collector fixed the standard rent at Rs. 65/- plus Rs. 2/8 per month for improvements, holding that the second schedule of the Jaipur Rent Control Order did not apply as the shop was not given on rent on 1st September 1939.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Collector had erred in interpreting Section 1(b)(i) of the second schedule of the Jaipur Rent Control Order. The Court found that the plain meaning of the provision was that if the premises were on hire on 1st September 1939, the rent payable on that day should be regarded as the basic rent for fixing the standard rent. Since the shop was on hire on that date, the Collector should have fixed the standard rent under the second schedule based on the rent payable on 1st September 1939.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector erred in interpreting Section 1(b)(i) of the second schedule of the Jaipur Rent Control Order? 2. Whether the Collector had jurisdiction to fix the standard rent under Section 6(2) of the Order when the provisions of the second schedule were applicable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Collector had erred in interpreting Section 1(b)(i) of the second schedule of the Jaipur Rent Control Order. The Court found that the plain meaning of the provision was that if the premises were on hire on 1st September 1939, the rent payable on that day should be regarded as the basic rent for fixing the standard rent. Since the shop was on hire on that date, the Collector should have fixed the standard rent under the second schedule based on the rent payable on 1st September 1939. 2. The Court held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to fix the standard rent under Section 6(2) of the Order when the provisions of the second schedule were applicable. The Court found that Section 6(2) could only be used to fix the standard rent if it was not possible to fix the rent under the provisions of the second schedule.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Collector's decision, and directed the Collector to fix the standard rent of the premises according to law, applying the provisions of the second schedule of the Order.
RANAWAT, J.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners Nanagram and Ballilal are the owners of a shop in Johri Bazar of which the opposite party Ghinsi Lal is the tenant. The petitioners purchased this shop from Khavas Eala Baksh on the 30th of May, 1937 when the opposite party Ghinsilal was in possession of it as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 55/- and after the purchase of the shop by the petitioners, Ghinsi Lal attorned in favour of the petitioners and executed a rent note on the 10th of July, 1937 stipulating to pay Rs. 65/-Jharsai per month. On the 11th of January, 1940, another rent note was executed by Ghinsi Lal by which the monthly rent was reduced to Rs. 50/- Indian Coin. The petitioners constructed a verandah in front of the shop on the 1st of November, 1943 at a cost of Rs. 1200/-and on the 26th March, 1948 the rent of the shop was increased to Rs. 70/- Indian Coin per month and a fresh rent note was executed by the opposite party. On the 15th of April. 1949. the petitioners served a notice on Ghinsi Lal, informing him of their intention to increase the rent of the shop to Rs. 130/- per month which was calculated at twice the rate at which the premises were let on the first of September, 1939 and a further sum of Rs. 778 per month was added on account of the improvements made by the petitioners. Thus the petitioners claimed a sum of Rs. 137/8 per month from the opposite party, but ghinsi Lal declined to accept the demand made by the petitioners. The dispute regarding the standard rent payable in respect of the shop in question was submitted to the Rent Controller, Jaipur under Section 6 of the Jaipur Rent control Order, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Order) by an application dated the 10th March,. 1949. The Rent Controller gave his decision, holding that the rent payable on the 1st September, 1939 was Rs. 65/- kaldar per month. Consequently the standard rent of the shop in question was determined to be Rs. 130/- per month plus Rs. 2/8 per month on account of improvements. Ghinsi Lal filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller in the Court of the Collector, who was the appellate authority under the Jaipur Rent Control order. The Collector held that as the shop was not given on rent on the first day of September, 1939, but as it was previously let out to Ghinsi Lal, second schedule of the Jaipur Rent Control Order did not apply to this case and the standard rent was therefore, determined under the provisions of Section 6 (2) of the Order. The standard rent fixed by the Collector was Rs. 65/- plus Rs. 2/8 per month on account of improvements. The petitioner, Nanagram and Ballilal have now filed this application against the judgment of the Collector, Jaipur dated 28th of April, 1950 on the grounds that: (1) The collector erroneously exercised the jurisdiction in fixing the standard rent of the shop under Section 6 (2) of the Jaipur Rent Control Order by misinterpreting the clear language of section 1 (b) (i) of the second schedule. (2) Even under Section 6 (2) of the order the rent was fixed arbitrarily and in disregard of the considerations specified under Section 6 (2) of the Order.
( 2 ) SECTION 1 of the second schedule of the Jaipur Rent Control Order is as follows:
"1. In this schedule, basic rent, in relation to any premises mean: (a) Where the fair rent of the premises has been determined or redetermined under the provisions of the Jaipur House Rent Control order, 1943, the rent as so determined or, as the case may be, redetermined, and (b) in any other case: (i) the rent at which the premises were let on the first day of September, 1939 or (ii) if the premises were not let on that date, the rent at which they were first let after that date. "
( 3 ) UNDER the provisions of the second schedule, basic rent in relation to any premises has got to be determined in cases not falling in Sub-clause (a) on the basis of the rent payable
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
