MALIK SINGH Vs. JAGAN NATH BAHL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Jagan Nath Behl, respondent in this Court instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,205.41 against S. Malik Singh, appellant here as arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The arrears of rent were claimed for the period 12th May, 1960 to 31st March, 1966, because Shri P. K. Bahri, Additional Rent Controller had fixed the standard rent of the premises at Rs. 50.00 per month by an order made on 6th June) 1967. But, this standard rent was made effective from 12th May, 1960. Before the date of the judgment, ShriA.P.Chaudhery, Additional Rent Controller had already passed an eviction order on 1st April, 1966 against the tenant. The tenant was actually evicted on 8th May, 1969. Undoubtedly, before the standard rent was fixed, the tenant was paying only Rs. 10.00 per month. .The landlord, therefore, filed the suit for recovery of the extra rent for the period 12th May, 1960 to 31st March, 1966, and for damages for use and occupation after the eviction order became operative; he claimed damages equivalent to the standard rent for the period 1st April, 1966 to 8th May, 1969.

(2.) The suit was tried by Shri H. S. Bakshi, Subordinate Judge Ist Class, who byjudgment and decree dated 30th April, 1971 allowed the claim of the plaintiff as regards the damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per month, but he disallowed the claim for extra rent for the period 12th May, 1960 to 31st March, 1966. One of the questions raised was as to whether the full claim was within limitation. It was held by the trial Court that the suit could not be filed before the standard rent had been fixed, so the claim was not barred by time. But it was held that the landlord could not claim anything above the contractual rate of rent till he had given a notice increasing the rent. Consequently, although the standard rent had been raised to Rs. 50.00 per month, which was well above the rate at which the tenant was paying the rent, the landlord was disentitled to recover the amount unless he actually raised the contracted rate of rent by a notice. On this ground the suit was only partly decreed.

(3.) Both the landlord as well as the tenant filed appeals which were heard by Shri N. C. Kochhar. Additional District Judge. The landlord's appeal has been allowed and the full claim has been decreed and the tenant's appeal was rejected. Now the tenant has applied to this Court to claim that nothing more than Rs. 10.00 per month is payable and the decision of the trial Court is right as far as the claim for rent is concerned, but the decision of both Courts below is wrong as far as the rate of damages is concerned.