JAI KISHAN Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed gainst the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dated 4th November 1963. Appellant Jai Kishan was a tenant under the Respondent 1n a portion of building bearing Municipal No. 2524, situated in Gali Peepal Wall, paying Rs. 58.00 per mensemn as rent. The the tenant made an. application under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for fixation of standard Rent of the premises alleging that the agreed rent was excessive and exorbitant. During the pendency of this application an order was passed on 11-4-63. for eviction against the tenant from the premises in question The landlord applied to the Controller that the tenant's application for fixation of standard rent was no longer maintainable as he had ceased to be a tenant within the meaning of section 2 (1) of the said Act. The Rent Controller and the Tribunal both upheld the landlord's contention. The expression 'tenant' has been defined by sec.tion 2 (1) of the said Act. The definition in terms excludes persons from the purview of tenants against whom a decree or order for ejectment has been passed. The definitions in section 2 are subject to the requirements of the context to the contrary. Sub-section (2) of section 4 provides that any agreement for payment of rent in excess of the standard rent shall be construed as if it were an agreement for the payment of standard rent. Section 5 prohibits any person from claiming or receiving any rent in excess of standard rent. Section 6 gives the meaning of 'standard rent. Section 9 provides that the Controller shall on an application made to him in this behalf, either by the landlord or by the tenant, fix the standard rent in respect of any premises. Under sub-section (7) of section 9 the Controller is required to specify a date from which the standard rent fixed shall be deemed to have effect. The date so specified cannot be earlier than one year prior to the date of the application for the fixation of the standard rent. Section 12 prescribes the period of limitation for making an application for fixation of standard rent. The whole question that has to be determined is : whether a tenant against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed can make an application for fixation of standard rent ? In other words, is the tenant entitled to apply and say that "though an order for ejectment has been passed against me T occupied the house for a year. Therefore fix the standard rent so that for that one year my liability is determined which, by virtue of section 4, cannot be more than the standard rent,". Mr. Kapur, the learned counsel for the respondent, says that the change in the circumstances, namely, the passing of a decree can be taken into account after a tenant ceases to be in occupation of the premises or ceases to be a tenant he cannot continue the application. He further relies on Skinner v. Geary and says that intention of the Legislature is to apply the provisions of law to persons in occupation of the premises and not to those who have left it with no intention to occupy it again. Mr. Bali, the learned counsel for the appelant, on the other hand, submits that an appliaation validl ./ presented by a person who was a tenant does not lone its validity by reason of a decree of ejectment. I am in agreement with the sudmission of Mr. Bali. Under section 4 every agreement for payment of rent in excess of the standard rent has to be construed as if it were an agreement for payment of the standard rent only. That being so, no tenant has any liability to pay to the landlord anything beyond the standard rent. A person, who had been a tenant, can, therefore, notwithstanding an order for ejectment, go to the court and ask for the fixation of the standard rent. The provisions of the Act must be read in a reasonable manner and when so read it', is difficult to hold that a person against whom an order for ejectment has been passed should be held liable to pay more than the standard rent although he was a tenant for some time. In my opinion, any person can make an application for fixation of standard rent for the determination of his liability during the period he was a tenant. The result of accepting Mr. Kapur's argument would be that a person against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed would be bound to pay more than the standard rent even with respect to the period during which he was a tenant in spite of the fact that he had made an application for fixation of the standard rent before passing of the ejectment order against him. Such a tenant would not be even entitled to set up the plea of standard rent in defence to a suit filed against him for the recovery of rent because it is only the Controller who can fix the standard rent and the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred by reason of section 50 of the Act. In this view it must be held that the Rent Control Tribunal was in error in dismissing the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the matter will go back to the Rent Controller for decision of the application on merits.

(2.) THE parties will appear before the Rent Controller on the 12th October, 1965.