KRISHNA DEVI GANERIWALA Vs. DHAN RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of four second appeals from orders Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 50 of 1969 filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), all directed against the identical order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 29th October, 1968, by which the appeals of the tenants were dismissed and order of Mr. P. K.. Bahri, 1st Additional Controller dated 11th March, 1968 was affirmed, finally fixing the standard rent of the premises in occupation of the various tenants at Rs. 45.00 per month.

(2.) The dispute between the parties relates to a property situated at Kashmere Gate. Delhi. This property formerly consisted of a large hall on the ground floor, but later on in 1963 or so it has been converted into various shops which have been let out to different tenants at a rent of Rs. 90.00 per month each. The respondents in these appeals having taken the premises on rent in 1964, filed objections under section 9 of the Act for fixation of standard rent. They claimed that the property was old and standard rent should be fixed at Rs. 13.00 per month. The contention of the landlady appellant was that the premises in dispute were newly constructed. The Additional Controller in a well written judgment came to the conclusion that a big hall originally constructed on the ground floor in 1924 had been converted into 23 shops by raising partition walls without changing the roof or the ceiling or the flooring and did not constitute new construction so as to be exempt from the operation of the standard rent for a period of five years. He also found that there was no satisfactory evidence of determining the standard rent of the premises in accordance with the rules laid down in section 6 of the Act and so he determined the standard rent under section 9(4) of the Act with effect from the date of the respective petitions. The aforesaid findings of the Controller have been affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady has filed second appeals in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the premises in dispute are not the same old premises and they constitute newly constructed premises within the meaning of section 2(i) of the Act and they are exempt from the operation of the standard rent within the meaning of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section (6) of the Act. The next contention made in the alternative is that the rent of the premises ought to have been fixed under sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of part B of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Act and not under section 9(4) of the Act and at all events the rent should be higher.