HAJI MOHAMMED NASEEM Vs. MONGA BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting aspect of the meaning of the word "premises" in its relation to the fixation of "standard rent" under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the act) falls to be considered in this case. The appellant is the landlord, who owns a big hall on the main Sadar Bazar Road. Out of this hall a demarcated space of 17'x6' was let out by the appellant landlord to the respondent-tenant on 17-7-1954 at a rent of Rs. 131-4-00 per month on the basis of the rent note exhibit R-2. The tenant applied for the fixation of the standard rent of the premises. The Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 35/- per month under section 9(4) of the Act. The Rent Control Tribunal, however, varied the standard rent to Rs. 49/- per month under section 6(1) (B)(2)(b) of the Act. The landlord is here in the second appeal.

(2.) The three methods of fixing the standard rent under the Act relevant in the present case, are those laid down in sections 6(1)(13)(1), 6(1)(B) (2)(b) an 9(4). The question for decision, therefore, is which method applies to the facts of the present case.

(3.) The appellant landlord urges that the standard rent should be determined under section 6(1)(B)(1). This applies only when the premises are let out at any time before 2-6-1944. Admittedly, the premises let out to the respondent-tenant were not let out as a whole prior to 2-6-1944. The landlord has, however proved that a part of these premises, viz. space measuring 11'x6' had been let out in October, 1943 on a rent of Rs. 103-2-00 to a third person. The landlord would like the standard rent the said portion of these premises be fixed under section 6(1)(B)(1) of the Act. He conceeds that the rent of the rest of the premises cannot be fixed under section 6(1)(B)(1) inasmuch as they were never let out prior to 2-6-1944. The contention of the landlord is untenable for the following reasons. Firstly, the standard rent had to be fixed of the premises which were let out to the respondent-tenant in 1954 but these premises as a whole were not let out to any one prior to 2-6-1944. Secondly, the word "premises" as defined in section 2(i) of the Act comprises of two elements viz. (1) the building and (2) the contract. The building alone is not premises unless it is let out. Therefore, the contention of the landlord that a part of the premises which are let out to the respondent were also let out prior to 2-6-1944 cannot be accepted unless we can regard the said part also as "Premises" within the meaning of section 2(1). This we cannot do. For as observed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Bata Shoe Co Ltd. v. Narayan Das, 1953 AIR(Cal) 234 :-