The Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to determine the rent of all the flats in a newly constructed building, even though specific notice was only issued to the landlord regarding the complaints of two tenants, if he discovers that other tenants in the same building are also charged similar excessive rents for the premises occupied by them.

1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the District Judge at Delhi dismissing the appeal of the petitioner Raj Krishan Jain against the order of the Rent Controller dated 19-7-1950 under Section 7A read with the fourth Schedule of the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act of 1947 fixing the standard rent of a house constructed by the petitioner on plot No. 11, No. 1 Darya Ganj, at Rs. 4537- and dividing the rent of the building among the eight tenants by fixing the rent for the four ground floor flats at Rs. 59/47- and for the four upper flats at Rs. 54/- per mensem.

2. It appears that the old bungalow known as No. 1, Darya Ganj had a large compound and a number of houses were built therein, one of them built on plot No. 11 being the premises in dispute. Two of the tenants of ground floor flats Hot Chand Hira Nand and Tulsi Das R. Sugand filed complaints with the Rent Controller In October and December, 1949 alleging that the rent paid by them for their flats was excessive. In each of these cases, the Rent Controller issued a notice to the landlord calling on him to submit all relevant records relating to the whole building. In January 1950 a third tenant Jaswant Rai Taneja submitted a similar application regarding which no specific notice appears to have been sent to the landlord. The record of the proceedings before the Rent Controller shows that three of the flats forming part of the house had been requisitioned fay the Government and there are some letters on the file which show that the local authorities were also anxious to have the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller with regard to the requisitioned flats.

The record also shows that the landlord practically refused to co-operate with the Rent Controller in the enquiry or to assist in any way. In reply to the first notice sent regarding the petition of Hot Chand Hiranand a letter was sent by the landlords son stating that his father was away from Delhi on a tour of pilgrimage and was expected back in the middle of December. The proceedings were accordingly adjourned, but again in January 1950 a letter was received saying that the landlord was away from Delhi and time was asked to be extended for the production of the evidence required by the Rent Controller to the middle of February. On the 7th of February the landlord wrote to the Rent Controller saying that he had not sufficient time to get a proper plan of the building prepared and an estimate of the cost worked out, and that time should be allowed till the end of March.

The case was then flxed for the 24th of March, but the landlord did not appear on that day and sent a medical certificate. Although some of the tenants protested, the Rent Controller adjourned the proceedings until the 18th of April. On that day a counsel appeared for the landlord and asked for an adjournment, but the Rent Controller said that he would discuss the matter at 3-30 p. m. in the presence of the tenants, and when the case was taken up at that time, nobody appeared for the landlord. From these facts, the Kent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord was unwilling to assist him in the enquiry and after hearing the tenants and conducting an elaborate personal survey of the building, he made an estimate of its value together with the value of the land and flxed the rent on the basis of 74 per cent. return on the capital invested. It may, however, be mentioned that a sort of a written statement dated 10-6-1950 was submitted on behalf of the landlord.

3. The appeal of the landlord was dismissed by the learned District Judge Mr. S. S. Dulat, now a Judge of this Court, by his order dated 31-5-1951. In this order he has discussed and dealt with all the points raised on behalf of the landlord. The first point was that the Rent Controller had proceeded ex parts without justification but the mere recital of the facts set out above shows how unfounded this plea was. In fact ever