CHANDER BHAN Vs. NANDLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the landlord's second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal fixing the standard rent of his premises occupied by the tenant-respondent No. 2 at Rs. 15.00 per month only. The facts leading to the impugned orders are not in dispute. The appelant-landlord filed an application for the eviction of both the respondents alleging that both of them were his tenants on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent under proviso (a) to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act.'). He alleged that the agreed rent of the premises was Rs. 25.00 per month. Respondent No. 1, Nand Lal, filed a written statement disclaiming all interest in the premises and stating that respondent No. 2, Chuni Lal, alone was the tenant. Respondent No. 2, Chuni Lal, contested the petition and stated that the agreed rent was only Rs. 10.00 per monthOn 2-2-1965, the Rent Controller fixed the interim rent of the premises at Rs. 20.00 per month under sub-section (3) of section 15 of the Act. Chuni Lal, respondent No. 2, thereupon appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal which by its order dated 8-4-1965 reduced the interim rent to Rs. 15.00 per month acting under section 15(3) of the Act. In paragraph 19 of his written statement dated 3-11-1962 respondent No. 2, Chuni Lal stated that the standard rent of the premises may be fixed if the Court thinks fit. Thereupon the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 12.00 per month with effect from the date of the eviction petition, viz. 25-8-1964 by his order dated 31-12-1966. Arrears of rent having been deposited by the tenant, the application of the landlord for eviction of the tenant was also dismissed. The landlord's appeal against this order was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal. Hence this second appeal by him.

(2.) The grounds pressed in arguments by the learned counsel for the appellant are discussed below. The learned counsel pressed for the relief of eviction, but this was rightly disallowed as the arrears of rent had been deposited by the tenant. It was argued that in fixing the standard rent the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal did not take into account the market price of the land on which the premises were constructed though this was required to be done under Section 6(2) of the Act. I find, however, that the standard rent was fixed under Section 9(4) of the Act and not under Section 6 at all. The Rent Controller had regard to the situation, locality and the condition of the premises,as required by Section 9(4) of the Act before arriving at the figure of the standard rent. The shop is a very small one of about 6'x 4'. The findings of the courts below are based on the criteria laid down by Section 9(4) as far as the evidence of such criteria was available. In the circumstances, they could not be expected to take into consideration any factor other than those which were available to them. There is no reason to interfere with their concurrent findings offacts.

(3.) The learned counsel also argued that the tenant did not pay or deposit the rent for the month of December, 1966 after the order fixing the interim rent was passed by the Controller on 2-2-1965.