LAWS(KAR)-1971-7-40

P K RUKMINI BAI Vs. VENKATESWARA SILK HOUSE

Decided On July 20, 1971
P.K.RUKMINI BAI Appellant
V/S
VENKATESWARA SILK HOUSE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six revision petitions arise out of the three applications Bled by the same landlady against the different tenants for fixation of fair rent under S. 14 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961. The three revision petitions have been filed by the Landlady challenging the correctness of the order of the lower appellate Court and the other three revision petitions have been filed by the tenants challenging the order of the lower appellate Court by which an order remanding the application for fresh determination has been made. As common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, they were heard together and decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The case of the petitioner-landlady is that the premises in question is a non-residential premises situated in an important locality in Bangalore, i.e., Chickpet, Bangalore-2, in which the respondents are the monthly tenants and it is necessary to determine the fair rent. The objection raised by the tenants is that the old building was destroyed by fire and a new building was built during 1947, as such the fair rent has to be fixed at 6 per cent of reasonable cost of construction. It was stated that that if it is so fixed, then the rent which was being paid would itself be excessive.

(3.) The particulars of the properties and other details which are relevant for the present purpose are given below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_635_MYSLJ2_1971Html1.htm</FRM> The House Rent Controller recorded the evidence and came to the conclusion that the fair rent fixed will be effective from 1st January 1963. The correctness of the decision given by the Controller was challenged before the Court of the District Judge and the learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that the premises in question was not ready for occupation prior to 1-4-1947, and therefore, the fixation of fair rent by the House Rent Controller was erroneous. It is the legality and correctness of these orders that are challenged in these revision petitions.