AMRIK CHAND Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgement will dispose of two Second Appeals, S.A.O. Nos. 92 and 306 of 1968.. Amrik Chand is the appellant in both the second Appeals, and Harbans Singh is the respondent in the two second Appeals. The facts which have given rise to these second Appeals are as follows :- The dispute between the parties relates to three rooms and a Varandah in house No. 14, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The said house was Government built property and was allotted to Amrik Chand by the Ministry of Rehabilitation in the year 1954. In 1955, an agreement deed purporting to be a partnership deed was executed between Amrik Chand and Harbans Singh, and the latter was put in possession of the said three rooms and Varandah. Subsequently, disputes arose between them, and AmrikChand filed a Civil Suit in 1957 for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against Harbans Singh. Harbans Singh pleaded that he was a tenant of the premises in dispute and was using the back portion of the same for his residence and the front portion for manufacturing furniture. The trial court held that . the relationship of the parties was that of partners. But, on appeal, the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi reversed the decision and te matter went up in Second Appeal No.91-D of 1959 , of the High Couit. In that Second Appeal, an interim order was made by the High Court on 13th October, 1959, directing that Harbans,Singh should deposit Rs. 45.00 per mensem from 3rd October, 1955, and should continue to do so every month. The Second Appeal was dismissed by Capoor, J.on 27th April 1962, affirming the decision of the lower Appeliate court that partnership had not come into existence at all, and dismissing the suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed in an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent in April, 1964. On 12th August, 1964, Amrik Chand accepting the position of Harbans Singh as that of a tenant, filed a petition under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for eviction of Harbans Singh, alleging that the premises in dispute were non-residential and were let for manufacturing furniture; and that the tenant had changed the user of the premises to a tea shop-cum-residence without the permission of the landlord. Eviction was sought on two grounds, namely mis-user of the premises and non-payment of rent. The tenant, Harbans Singh, pleaded that the premises were commercial-cum residential, that he had never misused the same and that he had paid some amount to the landlord in the previous litigation, and accounts may be adjusted between the parties. He also pleaded that standard rent may be fixed. As regards non-payment of rent, the Rent Controller passed an order undersection 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, fixing the interim rent at Rs. 65.00 per month and directing the tenant to deposit arrears of rent at the said rate with effect from 15.6.1961. Anappeal was preferred against the said order to the court of the Rent Control Tribunal which reduced the interim rent to Rs. 45.00 per mensem. Against that order, a second Appeal, S.A.O. No. 147-D of 1965, was preferred to the High Court by Amrik Chand. The Second Appeal was heard by A N. Grover, J. (as his Lordship then was), who by his judgment, dated 16th February, 1966, held that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 65.00 per mensem and the Rent Controller was justified in fixing the interim rent at Rs. 65.00 per mensem, that the Rent Control Tribunal interefered with that order without giving cogent reasons, and that the Tribunal fell into a substantial error in interfering with the order of the Rent Controller in the matter of fixation of interim rent. In the result, the learned Judge allowed the Second Appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the order of the Rent Controller. The petition for eviction subsequently came up for hearing before the Rent Controller. By an order, dated 20th January, 1967, the Rent Contoller held that the three rooms and the Varandah were let to Harbans Singh for commercial cum-residential purposes, that the tenant was manufacturing furniture in the front room while he kept his residence in the other rooms from the date of the commencement of the tenancy, and that by so using some of the rooms as residence, he did not use the premises for a purpose other than the purpose for which they were let out within-the meaning of clause (6) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Rent Control Act. In the alternative, the Rent Controller held that even if it is held that the whole of the premises were let for manufacturing furniture only, the question would arise as to whether the tenant had used the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let by having residence in the back portion, and that in view of the decisions in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Bal Raj Arora, (1 Inder Singh v. Kalu Ram, (2 and Firm Himalayan Traders v. Narain. Dass. (3 it was necessary that the landlord should establisli that the change in the user related to the whole of the presmises let out and not a part of the same, and that since Harbans Singh was only using a portion of the premises for residence, there was no question of any change of user by the tenant within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section(1) of section 14 of the Rent Control Act. The Rent Controller also referred to sub-section (5) of section 14 of the Act, and held that there was no evidence in the case to show that the tenant used the premises for a tea shop at any time or that there was any misuser of the premises which amounted to a public nuisance or caused damage to the premises or was otherwise detrimental to the interests of the landlord. The Rent Controller thus came to the conclusion that the tenant was not liable to be evicted on the ground contained in clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

(2.) As regards the determination of the standard rent for the three rooms and Varandah, the Rent Controller pointed out that the premises in question was Government built property, that when the property was allotted to the landlord, the valuation of the structure had been put at Rs. 5,387.00 and the value of the land had been put at Rs. 1769.40 by the Government, and that, according to Shri O. P. S, Bhatia, Fieled Inspector, L & D. O, who was examined as R.W.1, the aforesaid value was fixed by the Government on "no profit no loss basis." He further pointed out that the premises in question were commercial-cum-residential that the standard rent had, therefore, to be fixed under section 6(1)(B)(2)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the basis of the aggregate of the reasonable cost of the construction of the structure and the market price of the land comprised in the premises on the date of the commencement of the construction, and that the tenant had examined Shri N.P. Bakshi, Consulting Engineer, as R.W.5, who estimated the cost of the structure at Rs. 3,423/ . The Rent Controller also pointed out that Shri Bakshi had used the C.P.W.D. Schedule of rates of 1950 for the premises built in 1953. On a consideratian of the matter, the Rent Controller took the ,view that the estimate of Shri Bakshi was rather low, and that the value put by the Government, viz. Rs.5387.00was itself a concessional rate. Ultimately the Rent Controller fixed the cost of construction of the structure at Rs. 5387.00.

(3.) As regards the market price of the land, the Rent Controller pointed out that since the property was allotted to Amrik Chand on 15.2.1954, it must have been constructed by the Government in 1953, that the value pat by the Government on the land, viz. Rs. 1769.40 paise was as concessional value, that there was evidence on record that the Government auctioned some plots of almost equal sizes for Rs. 10,000.00 and Rs. 15000.00 in 1955, and that a.s the market value of land in the locality in 1953, was not avaiable, the price for which plots were auctioned by the Government in the next available i.e., 1955, had to be relied upon. After considering all the circumstances and the evidence, the Rent Controller fixed the market price of the land and the premises in question at Rs. 9000.00. Adding Rs. 9000.00 and Rs. 5387.00 making anaggregate of Rs. 14387.00 the Rent Controller fixed the standerd rent of Rs. 103.00per month. In the result this rent controller directed the tenant Harbans Singh to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 103.00 per month for the period from 15-6-196110 31-12-1966 after deducting from the same the money already deposited by the tenant in the court. The Rent Controller ordered that the tenant should deposit the balance amount within one month from the date of the order, and if the amount is so deposited, the petition for eviction would stand dismissed, and that if the tenant did not so deposit, it should be deemed aneviction order has been passed against the tenant, and the landlord should to entitled to get possession of the permises from the tenant. The Rent Controller also made it clear that the ground of misuser of the premises pleaded by the landlord for eviction of the tenant was rejected.