HARDIT SINGH Vs. MELA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sardar Harjit Singh, appellants, is the owner of the premises in dispute, consisting of a garage situated on Library Road, Azad Market. Delhi. It was let out to the respondent form at a rent of Rs. 70.00 per month, on November 1, 1959. On October 30, 1961 the respondent filed an aoplication under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control A Control Act, 1958 for the fixation of standard rent on the alhgations that the premises were in occupation of tenants before 1914 and the rent for the same before June 2,1954 was Rs. 20.00 per month only. It was stated that the standard rent of the premises in dispute could not be more than Rs.20.00 per month Prayer was made that the standard rent of the premises be fixed at Rs. 20.00 per month. The appellant-landlord contested the application.

(2.) before the Additional Controller the respondent examined AW1, Dr Sain Dass. a medical practititioner, who had been inoccupation of the premises in dispute for nearly -8 years before 1959, when tie vacated. At then time, he was paying Rs. 24/10.00 as monthly rent, which was proved by the .rent receipts produced by him . The wintess was, thus a tenant in the premises in the year 1939. His statement was neither assailed in cross examination, nor was any other evidence produced to cast any reflection on his version. The rent paid by Dr. Sain Dass on September 1, 1939 was Rs. 18.56 per month. It was found by the Additional Controller that the rpspondent had installed a power connecin the premises for running some machines therein. Dr. Sain Dass, being a physician, had been running, on the other hand, his clinic in the suit premises The locality in which the demised premises is sitnuated was proved to have gained importance of late, so much so that a shop measuring 10 X 10 (a much lesser area than the suit premises) was yeilding rent of Rs. 66.00 per month AW3, Siri Ram, had stated that he had let out a. shop nearly one fourth area of the premises in suit, at a rental of Rs. 80.00 per month. The Additional Controller took Rs. 18.56 to be the original rent. Adding 25 per cent in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Delhi Rent Control Act, the basic rent was worked out at Rs 23.20 per month. Another 10 per cent was added under section 6(1) (B)(l) of the Act to make a total of Rs 25 5'2. Considering the circurrstances of the case, especially the current rentals in the neighbourhood and the use to which the premises were being put, he fixed Rs. 40.00 per month as the standard rent of the premises.

(3.) The Rent Control Triounal. however, considered that there was no justification for increasing the standard rent under the provisions of section 9(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The subsequent installation and the running of the machines in the premises in suit and its effect of undermining the life of (be premises, according to the Tribunal, could cot be taken into consideration, as the order fixing the stan and rent was an order in rem and the rent was not to change with the change in the user of the premises. He, therefore did not cosider any justification for increasing the amount of Rs. 25.52 to Rs 40.00per month. the order under appeal further mentioned , that if the premises were vacated by the respondent and were let out again to Dr. Sain Dass for running his clinic, there would be no occasion to reduce the standard rent on the ground that the user of the premises by the Doctor would not under - mine their life. It is under th(se circumstances that he held the standard rent of the premises to be Rs. 25.52 per month with effect from 1st December, 1961. The landlord has, therefore, come up in second appeal to this Court.