RANJAN DWIWEDI Vs. M L PAREEKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act) is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st January, 1986 of the Rent Conirol Tribunal confirming the order dated 16th January, 1986 of the Additional Rent Controller fixing the interim rent of the premises in dispute at the contractual rate of rent Rs. 1600 per month under Section 10 of the Act. The appellant Ranjan Dwiwedi is a tenant in a portion of House No. A-71, Hauz Khas, New Delhi under the respondent M. L. Pareekh. The appellant filed an application for fixation of standard rent. He has alleged that he was in possession of a portion of the house at Rs. 1600 per month; the house was constructed in 1964; the material used in the construction of the premises was of inferior quality, the cost of construction could not be more than Rs. 20,000; the plot was purchased by the respondent for Rs. 10,000; the rateable value of the entire house was Rs. 10,260; and the rent of similar accommodation in the vicinity did not exceed Rs. 500 per month. The appellant therefore prayed that Rs. 500 be fixed as standard rent. The petition was contested by the respondent and he denied the various allegations made by the appellant. On the question of fixation of interim rent under Section 10 of the Act the Controller and the Tribunal held that there was no evidence to fix the interim rent on the principles contained in Section 6 of the Act. It was also held that the interim rent cannot be fixed on the basis of the rateable value. Accordingly the agreed rate of rent was fixed as interim rent under Section 10 of the Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the onus on the landlord to prove the cost of construction arid market value of the land on the date of commencement of construction. He further submits that the contractual rent cannot be legally fixed as interim rent under Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act reads as under :

(3.) The section provides for the Controller to make an order specifying the amount of rent to be paid by the tenant to the landlord pending final decision on the application for fixation of standard rent. The application can be filed either by the land lord or by the tenant but the onus is on the applicant under Sections 101 to 104 of the Evidence Act. Here the appellant is the applicant and therefore the onus is on him and not on the respondent-landlord to prove the facts for determination of standard rent. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Diwan Chand vs. Tirth Ram 1972 R.C.R". 88(91) (1) wherein it has been observed that it is the duty of the landlord to produce direct evidence about the cost of construction. This authority does not lay down that the onus is upon the landlord to prove facts for determination of standard rent.