SHAM RANI AND ANR Vs. P C MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The premises in dispute consisting of one room, measuring 15' x 8-1/2', a verandah of about the same dimensions, a kitchen, measuring 9' x 6-3/4', a latrine and a courtyard, measuring 15' x 14-1/2' in front, form part of a house, situated in Kucha Pati Ram, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. The appellants, Sham Rani and Kunj Behari Lal, are its owners, while the premises in dispute is occupied by P. C Mittal, respondent, as a tenant under the appellants. The agreed rent is Rs. 55/- per month. The respondent-tenant filed an application under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called the 'Act', for fixing the standard rent on the allegation that the agreed rent was excessive and the standard rent could not exceed Rs. 20/. per month, in view of the provision of section 6(1) A (1) of the said Act. The house was alleged to have been built prior to 1939 and had been tenanted on November 1, 1939. The standard rent, therefore, it was urged, should be fixed according to the basic rent of these premises, which itself has to be determined on the basis of the original rent. which is the rent at which the premises were let on November 1, 1939 or if the same were not let on that day, the rent at which the premises were first let at any time after that date, but before June 2, 1944. The Additional Controller held that the standard rent of the premises in dispute could not be fixed under section 6 of the Act for want of evidence. He fixed the standard rent instead under section 9(4) of the Act at Rs. 30/- per month with effect from January 1, 1960. Both the tenant and the landlord filed two separate appeals. The Rent Control Tribunal came to the conclusion that section 6 of the Act could not be invoked for the purpose of fixing the standard rent in this case. Applying the provisions of section 9(4) of the Act, it came to the conclusion that the standard rent of the premises in dispute was Rs. 36/- per month with effect from June 1, 1960, taken into consideration the accommodation, situation and the amenities provided in the house. The landlords have filed the present appeal against the said judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal.

(2.) AW1, Sham Behari Lal, deposed that from the year 1939 to 1948 he was the tenant on the ground floor, excepting the shop at Rs. 20/- per month as rent. The tenanted accommodation also included one saiban on the first floor and a roof on the second floor. No receipt or other document to prove the tenancy or the rate of rent was produced. At a later stage, however, the respondent produced a receipt, exhibit A-3 purporting to be signed by Sham Rani for Rs. 18/9/- as rent for February, 1941. Respondent-tenant failed to explain the source from where he obtained the said receipt nor was the signature of Sham Rani on the receipt satisfactorily proved. The witnesses had stated merely that the signature on the receipt looked probably like that of Sham Rani. No other receipt was forthcoming. It was, under the circumstances, considered that evidence was not available to fix the standard rent of the premises under section 6 of the Act and this was not contested by the counsel for the parties before the Tribunal.

(3.) Section 9(4) of the Act, according to the provisions of which the standard rent was ultimately fixed, reads as follows: