JAMUNA DEVI Vs. HUKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision under section 35 of Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 (Act XXXVIII of 1952) is directed against the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge,

(2.) Bhagat Duli Chand, who is now represented by his legal representatives, brought a suit on December 11, 1954, against Hukam Singh respondent for recovery of possession of two rooms and a kitchen on the ground floor of house No. 11038 situate in Muqeem Pura Subzi Mandi, Delhi. Evivtion of Hukam Singh was sought on the ground of (a) non payment of rent, (b) unauthorised sub-letting and (c) bona fide requirement of the land lord for his own use and occupation. Hukam Singh defendant- respondent pleaded inter alia for the fixation of the standard rent. The Trial Court rejected the claim of the plaintiff for ejectment. He, however, fixed the standard rent at Rs. 8.00 per mensem with effect from January 4, 1955. There was appeal by the landlord and cross-objections by the tenant. The Senior Subordinate Judge accepted the landlord's appeal and held that standard rent ought not to have been fixed as there was no sufficient material to do so. Both the landlord and the tenant filed revision petitions in this court and the matter was remitted to the court of the Senior Subordinate Judge for fixation of standard rent. The Senior Subordinate Judge in turn sent the matter back to the Subordinate Judge for recording further evidence and for determining the standard rent. By judgment dated December 26, 1960; the Trial Court found (a) that the premises were first let after June 2, 1944, (b) that the rent agreed was unreasonable and (c) that standard rent had therefore, to be fixed by the court. The Trial Court returned the case to the court of Senior Subordinate Judge with the record of evidence produced by the parties. His finding regarding the standard rent was that it ought to be Rs. 25.00 per month with effect from January 4, 1955. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge reconsidered the entire evidence and found that (a) the demised premises were first let out in July 1944, that is, after June 2, 1944; (b) having regard to -the rents that are being paid by tenants of other houses in the vicinity the agreed rent of the demised premises at Rs. 45.00 per month is unreasonable; (c) there is no evidence regarding the standard rent of any premises situate in the vicinity of the demised premises; (d) no reliable evidence is available on the record on the basis of which reasonable cost of construction of the premises can be determined; (e) reading of clause (b) of sub-section 1 (A)2 of section 6 and sub-section (2) of section 9 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 shows. that standard rent of a premises can be fixed at any reasonable amount subject to the maximum calculated on 7 per cent per annum of the aggregate amount of the reasonable cost of construction and the market price of the land comprised in the premises on the date of the commencement of construction, and (f) in the absence of evidence as to reasonable cost of construction standard rent can still be fixed under section 9(2) of the Act. The plaintiff not having produced evidence showing the reasonable cost of construction has himself to blame if the said cost is not taken into consideration while fixing the standard rent. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge then examined the rents of other premises similar to the demised premises in the locality and fixed the standard rent at Rs. 300.00 per annum with effect from January 4, 1955.

(3.) Mr. Hardy submits that provisions of 1958 Act have to be applied for determining the standard rent, which are paractically the same as of 1952 Act. According to Mr. Hardy the Court below were wrong in holding that the premises were first let after June 2, 1944, and this finding, which ostensibly is a finding of fact, is liable to be reviewed by me since it has been arrived at in disregard of very material evidence. The argument proceeds that it was common ground between the parties that the premises was first let to one Santosh Kumar. A lease deed purporting to have been executed by Santosh Kumar (Ex. P. W. 1/1) on May 1, 1944, was relied upon by the landlord. In the lease deed the name of Santosh Kumar's father is stated to be Surrinder Kumar. Santosh Kumar appeared as a witness and stated that he took the premises on lease in the month of July or August 1944. He denied having executed the lease deed but admitted that receipt for rent of the premises, being Exhibit D.W.1/1, dated July 1944 was issued by the landlord in his favour. In this receipt also name of Santosh Kumar's father is Surrinder Kumar. According to Santosh Kumar, however, his father's name is B.C. Bose. Plaintiff-appellants made an application that specimen signatures of Santosh Kumar might be taken and got examined and compared with the signature appearing on the lease deed by an expert. This request was turned down by the trial Court on the ground of delay and the Senior Subordinate Judge held the rejection justified. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge considered the entire evidence including the said receipt and came to the conclusion that it was difficult to say that Santosh Kumar was the very person who executed the lease deed Exhibit P. W. 1/1. He believed the categorical statement of Santosh Kumar in preference to all other evidence in concluding that the demised premises were first let in July 1944. In this view, it is not open to me to revise this finding of fact, based as it is not only on evidence but proper consideration of the entire material on the record: The two Courts below also having properly exercised their discretion in refusing to permit a party to produce handwriting expert on the grounds of delay, I would be travelling far bevond the limits of my jurisdiction under section 35 if I agreed with Mr. Hardy in his submission that I should reverse their decision and send back the matter for evidence of some handwriting expert.