CHUNILAL VITHALDAS Vs. MOHANLAL MOTILAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent in this appeal is the owner of a building used as a cinematograph theatre. By a registered deed, dated December 23, 1960, the appellant obtained a lease of the theatre at a monthly rental of Rs. 1,801. The appellant applied under S. 11 of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 22 of 1951-hereinafter called 'the Act' -for an order fixing the standard rent of the theatre. He submitted that the rent stipulated to be paid under the lease was "excessive, exorbitant and improper" and that the standard rent of the theatre, having regard to its situation and size and the amenities provided therein, could not exceed Rs. 350 per mensem. The respondent by his written statement submitted that the rent stipulated under the lease was reasonable.

(2.) The Court of First Instance fixed the standard rent of the whole theatre at Rs. 1,030-12-0 being the one-twelfth of the gross return at 6 per cent on the cost of construction of the theatre and the cost of furniture installed therein. But the learned Judge held that the respondent had not delivered to the appellant possession of the basement and of a part of the building which was intended to be used for a restaurant, and on that account reduced the standard rent payable by the appellant by Rs. 220.

(3.) Against the order of the Civil Judge, the respondent preferred an appeal under S. 28 (1) of the Act to the District Court, Gohilwad, and the appellant preferred cross-objections to the order appealed from. The District Court agreed with the Trial Court that the cost of construction of the building and cost of the furniture was Rs. 2,06,150, and held that standard rent should be fixed on the basis of a return of 7 per cent of the cost of the building and furniture, and on that footing computed the standard rent of Rs. 1,200 Per mensem. The District Court further held that possession of the space reserved for a restaurant was delivered to the appellant and since about June 1952 it was in the appellant's occupation. It was, however, common ground between the parties that possession of the cellar was not delivered by the respondent to the appellant. It was the case of the respondent that the cellar was not included in the premises let out. It was the case of the appellant that it was so included. On the view that the cellar was not included in the tenancy, the District Court directed that standard rent of the premises in the occupation of the appellant be fixed at Rs. 1,150 per mensem.