Back
Rajasthan High Court
Dave & Modi, JJ.
Shambhu Ram - Appellant
Versus
Kanhya Lal - Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision No. 105 of 1952
Decided On : October 18, 1954
The object of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act as stated in the preamble thereof is to control the rents of and evictions from certain premises in this State. It may be accepted that the object of the Act was mainly to afford protection and relief to tenants from the rapacious activities of the landlords created or accentuated by dearth of housing accommodation and that our interpretation of the Act must be Solly guided by this paramount consideration. But we cannot accept the view that if the plain intention and meaning of some of the provisions contained in the Act is to afford certain reasonable facilities to landlords also within certain limitations we should strain the meaning of these provisions and stretch them against the landlords and in favour of the tenants. While one of the main objects of the Act was certainly to afford security of their tenancy rights and protection against excessive rents to the tenants, the framers of the Act also intended that the landlords may not be denied some increase in the rents which were fixed years ago much earlier, say in 1942 or 1948 or earlier, and had become entirely out of harmony with the prevailing conditions in 1950. (Para 6)
Sec. 11 is complementary to sec. 6. That section permits a suit for fixation of standard rent where no rent has been fixed between the parties or where the rent fixed is excessive. Sec. 11 deals with a situation where obviously the rent is fixed but the landlord wants to increase it on considerations which may make such increase justifiable. There is nothing in this section which limits its application to the considerations set forth in sec. 10. The language used in the section is wide and unqualified and must receive its full effect. The increase allowed is such as may be permissible under the Act and for that we must naturally look to the other provisions thereof - namely secs. 6 and 8, 9 and 10; and not sec. 10 alone. Then sub-sec. (3) clearly lays down that the landlord may bring a suit for increase in rent which is not the same thing as standard rent. Now the expression "increase in renf" as contradistinguished from "increase in standard rent" clearly indicates that the legislature contemplated the possibility of an increase in rent, that is, over and above what had been once agreed upon, at the suit of a landlord even where no standard rent had been fixed, such increase to be within the limits permissible under the Act. The expression •permissible under the Act." also indicates that the scope of sec. 11 is wider than it would be if, instead, the legislature had used the phrase "permissible under sec". (Para 7)
Consequently, it is open to a landlord to file a suit for increase of rent independently of the provisions of sec. 10 of the Act, and the courts can rightly take cognizance of such suits and decide them according to law. That sec. 11 does not catalogue any principles within itself for the adjudication of such disputes is no consideration to the contrary because the increase permissible under the Act has been specified under the Act in sec. 6 and ailed sections and the courts may well adopt those criteria for arriving at a fair decision of the disputes subject to the maxima specified under sec. 6. (Para 7)
2. The cases before us have certain broad features which may be briefly stated. In all of them, the landlord charged a certain rent by an agreement under tenancies which commenced prior to 1946. In all of them the landlord gave a notice to the tenant, after the introduction of the Rajasthan Act, that the fromer wished to increase the rent. The tenant declined to pay the increased rent suggested. Thereupon the landlord filed a suit praying for the desired enhancement. This was claimed apart altogether from the grounds mentioned in sec. 10 of the Act. Both lower courts held that these cases fell outside the purview of sed. 6 of the Rajasthan Act, and, therefore the court had no jurisdiction to fix a standard rent. They also held that sec. 11 had no application as any increase under that section could be asked for only in those cases which fell within the four corners of sec. 10 and as the cases under consideration admittedly were outside the purview of that section, the courts dismissed the suits. Hence these revisions.
3. The contention raised before us by Mr. Chhangani on behalf of the petitioners is twofold. In the forst place, it was argued that even though rent was agreed upon, to start with, between the parties, the legal position was that as soon as the landlord gave a notice no rent could be sid to be agreed upon, and then on that view sec. 6 became applicable and the landlord was competent to make an application for fixation of the standard rent. Alternatively, it was conended that even if this view was not accepted, sec. 11 was wide enough to permit the landlord to ask for an increase within the limits permitted by the Act, and where such increase was not agreed to by the tenant, the landlord could file a suit for the purpose, and that this section was not limited by or tied to sec. 10 of the Act only. On the other hand it was strenuously contended on behalf of the opposite parties that where rent was once fixed by agreement between the parties, sec. 6 was wholly inapplicable as it could not be said that no rent had been agreed upon, and that so far as sec. 11 was concerned, it was a procedural section and came into play only where the landlord had made structural additions or alterations or where a case of sub-tenancy had arisen within the meaning of sec. 10. I was claimed, with great force, that where such conditions did not exist, and where rent was once fixed by agreement, the Rajasthan Act did not at all contemplate any increase of rent at the instance of the landlord and therefore the view taken by the courts below was perfectly correct and must be upheld.
4 We now proceed to examine the rival contentions in the light of the provisions of the Rajasthan Act. Sec. 5 provides that the rent payable for any premises in the areas to which this Act extends shall ordinarily be as may be agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant though this has been made subject to the order provisions of the Act. Sec. 6 then provides that the landlord or tenant may institute a suit for fixation of standard rent, and it is further laid down that this can be done (1) where no rent has been agreed upon and (2) where for any reason the rent agreed upon is claimed to be excessive. The section further lays down the principles for determining the standard rent. A very important provision made in
SupremeToday
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
