JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a landlords revision application against an appellate order of the Senior Sub Judge First Class Ajmer in a case for fixation of standard rent under sec. 8 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The case of the tenant was that he took the premises in suit on rent from the landlord on 5.1.48 at Rs. 40/- per month and that with effect from 1.1.49 he agreed to pay rent at Rs. 60/- per month after some improvements, additions and alterations had been made. The present suit was instituted on 5-12-52 for the fixation of standard rent on the ground that the premises were sub-let to one Surajmal at Rs. 18/- per month and that the rent was excessive compared to the prevailing rent of similar premises situated in the locality.

3. The only evidence that the premises were sub-let to Surajmal at Rs. 18/-per month consists of the statement of the tenant. The trial court did not rely on it. The appellate court only relied on a part of it namely that the premises were sub-let before 2nd June 1944. It did not rely on the allegation that they were so sub-let at Rs. 18/- per month. The trial court held that the premises were first let-out after 2nd June 1944 and as such clause (b) of sec. 8 (1) was applicable to the case. Taking into consideration the cost of improvements, additions and alterations effected between 5.1.48 and 1.1.49 it fixed the standard rent at Rs. 43/5/- per month. The tenant appealed against this decision. The landlord did not appeal against it. The appellate court held that sub section (3) of sec. 8 was applicable to the case. It fixed the standard rent at Rs. 32/2/4 on a comparison with the standard rent of an adjoining shop.

4. The approach of the appellate court was quite wrong. It has come in evidence that the premises in suit are parts of a building which was let out by the landlord to Messrs Central Radio Service Co. The premises in suit were never let out separately by the landlord to any one before 2nd June 1944, They were let out for the first time by the landlord to the plaintiff. Under! see. 2 (g) of the Act "premises" means any building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose.

5. The premises which were let out by the landlord to Messrs Central Radio Service Co. no doubt included the premises in suit but the premises were not let out separately by the landlord to any one before 2nd June 1944. They were let out for the first time to the plaintiff. In this connection I may refer to the case of Vaughan Vs. Shaw (1). In the enactment which came up for interpretation before the court of appeal in that case "dwelling house" is defined as a house let as a separate dwelling or a part of house being a part so let. The respondent was the landlord. On September 1, 1939 the house was let into two separate parts, one tenant paying rent at 17 s.a week and the other 15 s. 6 d. a week. In January 1941 the respondent let the whole of the house to the appellant at 25 s. a week. The respondent then applied to the court to have the standard rent fixed at 32 s. 6 d. a week since that was the total weekly rent of the house when it was let in two parts on September 1,1939. It was held that as the house itself was not let on September 1,1939, as a complete dwelling-house the standard rent was therefore the rent at 25 s. a week at which the house was first so let after September 1,1939 in view of the definition contained under the Act as a part of the building let separately. This decision is applicable to the present case.

6. The trial court therefore rightly held that sec. 8(1)(b) was applicable to the case.

7. Before a tenant is end-led to get standard rent fixed under sec. 8(1)(b) he has to show that the rent at which the premises are let is unreasonable. This unreasonableness has to be shown with reference to the prevailing rent of similar premises in the locality.

8. Par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document