SHIKAR CHAND JAIN Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-tenant was let out the premises by the respondent-landlord originally in February, 1957. The premises had just then been newly constructed and were first let out to the appellant. The tenant made an application for the fixation of standard rent of the premises within two years from the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter called the Act as required by section 12 thereof. The application was within limitation, but the Additional Rent, Controller, Shri Pritpal Singh, wrongly held, that under section 6(2)(b) the agreed rate of rent was deemed to be the standard rent for the first five years from the date of letting, and therefore, he could not fix the standard rent for the subsequent period. He, therefore, fixed the standard rent at the agreed rate only for the first five years and observed that "on the expiry of a period of five years, the rent would be revisable on application by any of the parties". The Additional Rent Controller obviously over-looked that no fresh application for fixation of standard rent could be made by the tenant and the standard rent had to be fixed once and for all by him on the application which had been made by the tenant within limitation, Both the parties however, acquiesced in this wrong decision which, therefore, operated as res judicata between him. The effect was that the tenant was prevented by sufficient cause within the meaning of proviso to section 12 of the Act from making an application for the fixation of the standard rent even. if it were to be held that another application for the fixation of standard rent could be made by him.

(2.) The tenant made the new application for fixation of standard rent on 18-5-1962 This application is open to two objections, viz. (1) A fresh application for the fixation of standard rent is not tenable inasmuch as on- application for that purpose was made and finally disposed of and (2) Even if the second application were held to be maintainable it is barred by time even after giving the tenant the benefit of the wrong order by the Additional Rent Controller stating that the tenant could passed make another application for the fixation of the standard rent after the expiry of five years from the date of the commencement of the tenancy.

(3.) The concurrent orders of the learned lower courts dismissing the application for the fixation of standard rent are, therefore, confirmed and the appeal is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.