SHANTI RANI Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shrimati Shsnti Rani, the landlady, has filed these two revisions (Nos. 279-D and 280- D of 184 1953) against the Judgment of the District Judge. Delhi, upholding the judgment and onder of the Subordinite Judge fixing the standard rent of the premsses.

(2.) Shrimati Shanti Rani had bought House No 2883 Har Dhian Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in February 1973 for a sum of, Rs. 5850.00 and odd. The house being in a dilapidated condition it was demolished and the entire building was reconstructed in 1945 46. Thereafter the landlady continued to make additions to it The rooms on the ground floor were meant for residence and at one time had been let out for that purpose. Somtime in 1956 the Delhi Improvement Trust declared the locality, in which the house was situated, as a business centre Thereafter, the landlady converted three rooms on the ground-floor into shops by opening their doors on the road and making other necessary addition and alterations. One of the shops was let out to Mohan Lal on 19th May, 1957. This shop had covered area of 40/sq.ft. and the rent agreed was Rs. 90.00 per month. The other two shops were let out to Prithvi Raj on 10th November 195S The covered area of these shops was 342 Sq. ft. and the rent agreed upon was Rs 200.00 per month. On 9th May, 1957. Prithvi Raj moved an application under section 8 of the Delhi aid Ajmer Rent Control Act No. 38 of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for fixation of the standard rent. Mohan Lal also made a similar application on 24th October, 1957, for fixation of the standard.rent of the premises in his occupation. The case of the landlady was that she had converted the residential rooms into shops at a considerable expense and that the rent she was changing was not mora than the standard rent to be fixed. In one of the applications the issue framed was "what is the standard rent of ths premises in dispute", whereas the following issues wire framed in the other application:

(3.) The petitioner's contention is that the lower Courts should have treated the shops as separate uiits of the building which were constructed in 1956-57 and should have taken into consideration the market value of ths land underneath the shops as in 1956 57 for the purpose of calculating the standard rent. Since admittedly that has not ben done the judgment should be set aside and the case remanded.