S GOVINDASWAMI Vs. KALLYANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges the fair rent, which has been fixed under the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950. The tenant, who is the writ petitioner before us, is residing in T. C. No. 796, Residency West Road, Thycaud, Trivandrum, and had applied for fixing the fair rent of what he is the tenant. The landlord having died, his wife has been impleaded as the representative; and the Rent Controller, after taking evidence, oral and documentary, had fixed Rs. 45/- as fair rent. In deciding rs. 45/- to be the proper rent, the Rent Controller has taken into consideration rates of rent in the locality for similar buildings during 12 months prior to 1118 and the rental value of the building as entered in the property Tax Register. The tenant was not satisfied, and appealed; but the appeal was dismissed, on the ground that the rent had been fixed with reference to the number of rooms and the improvements provided by way of water taps and electric connections. The tenant was still not satisfied, but his revision petition been dismissed on the ground that the order passed was in conformity with the provisions of S. 16. We feel the authorities have erred in interpreting s. 4 of the Order, whose relevant parts read as follows: S. 4. "[1] The Controller shall, on application by the tenant or landlord of a building, fix the fair rent for such building after holding such inquiry as the Controller thinks fit. (2) In fixing the fair rent under this clause, the controller shall have due regard [a ] to the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve months prior to [i] the first day of Chingom 1118 in respect of buildings situated in Travancore; [ii] the first day of april 1940 in respect of buildings situated in Cochin; [b] to the rental value as entered in the Property Tax Assessment Book of the Municipal Council or the corporation of Trivandrum, as the case may be, relating to the period mentioned in sub-clause [a] [c] to the circumstances of the case, including any amount paid by the tenant by way of premium or any other like sum in addition to rent after the first day of Chingom 1118 if the building is situated in travancore, or the first day of April 1940 if the building is situated in cochin. [3] In fixing the fair rent of residential buildings the controller may allow: [i] If the rate of rent or rental value referred to in sub-clause (2) does not exceed Rs. 25/- per mensem, an increase not exceeding 16 2/3 per cent on such rate or rental Value; [ii] if the rate of rent or rental value exceeds Rs. 25/- per mensem, but does not exceed Rs. 50/- per mensem, an increase not exceeding 25 per cent on such rate or rental value; [iii] if the rate of rent or rental value exceeds Rs. 50/- per mensem, an increase not exceeding 50 per cent on such rate or rental value: Provided that in the case of a residential building which has been constructed after the first day of Chingom 1118 if the building is situated in the territory of the erstwhile Travancore State, or the first day of April 1940 if the building is situated in the territory of the erstwhile cochin State, the percentage of increase shall not exceed 25, 371/2 and 60 per cent respectively. " xx x xxx xxx xxx

(2.) IN our opinion, the Controller, in determining the rent, must first ascertain the prevailing rate of rent for similar accommodation in the locality during the period, which is the basic, or find the rental value during the same period. He has, thereafter, to observe the limit given for the different slabs in S. 4 (3 ). IN other words, should the prevailing rate of rent in the locality or rental value in the basic period, be not more than Rs. 25/- per mensem, the Controller's fair rent cannot be more than 16 2/3 per cent on such rate or rental value. Should the rate of rent or rental value be not more than Rs. 50/- per mensem, the increase cannot exceed 25 per cent on such rates or rental value. Also, should the rate or rental value exceed Rs. 50/- per mensem, the increase must not exceed 50 per cent. Undoubtedly the Controller can take into consideration circumstances of each case, including the amount paid by the tenant as premium, but such consideration must not result in exceeding the statutory limits fixed for the relevant rent slab under S. 4 (3 ). It follows that the exercise of the power under the Order, has two limitations; one is the basic period, during which the rate of rent or the rental value of the property is to be ascertained, the next is the fixed percentage, beyond which the addition to the rent rate or rental value of the period cannot be exceeded. Now, Rs. 20/- is the rental value of the property in the case before us during the basic period, and, therefore, S. 4 (3) (i) is attracted, so that the limit, which the increase must observe, is 16 2/3 per cent of the rental value of the property. Admittedly, Rs. 45/- exceeds that limit by Rs. 15/-, and, therefore, the fair rent in the proceedings would come to only Rs. 30/ -. It follows that the judgment of the District Judge in this case must be vacated, and he is directed to decide the revision petition by passing orders in view of what has been held in this judgment to be the correct legal position. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; but, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their costs of this Court. Allowed.