RAJNIKANT JESHINGBHAI SHETH Vs. RAMESHCHANDRA KANTILAL BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two landlords Revision Applications. under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure raise important questions concerning the Courts perimeter uDder sec. 11 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). Amongst others the principal question which falls for determination is: where different floors of the same building have been constructed at intervals of a few years and have been let out at such intervals whether. the market value of the land at each letting can be taken into consideration fixing the standard rent in respect of the concerned premises and if yes on what principle should the market-value be. determined? The brief facts which are relevant for deciding the aforesaid question of general importance may be stated as under:

(2.) The petitioners are the owners of a parcel of land admeasuring about 1950 square yards bearing Sub-plot No. 1/A/1 of Final Plot No. 79 of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (Dariapur-Kazipur) situate in a fully developing and busy locality outside Shahpur Gate behind Harivansh Society. Ahmedabad. In the year 1964-65 they constructed a building consisting of a cellar a ground floor and a mezzanine floor on a part of the said land admeasuring about 321.30 sq. yards. Half of the ground- floor consisting of six rooms and azzanine floor admeasuring about 1081 sq. feet came to be let in 1965 to Safal English School started by the present opponent No. 2 at Rs. 425.00 per month plus taxes. The said school occupied the said premises upto 31/03/1968. This Safal English School sold its tenancy rights along with goodwill to Shri Akh- andanand Kelavani Uttejak Mandal a registered public trust which started a school in the said premises from 1/04/1968. The said trust initially paid Rs. 425-per month plus taxes by way of rent to the peti- tioners but it is an admitted fact that the rent was increased to Rs.501/ per month plus taxes with effect from 1/06/1969. In course of time the school progressed and more and more students joined the school. For want of accommodation the school had to be run in two shifts. The opponents therefore approached the petitioners with a request to cons- truct a first floor so that they may be able to accommodate their students in the additional space. Accordingly in 1969 the petitioners constructed a first floor consisting of six rooms admeasuring about 1980 sq. feet and let it out to the opponents on rent of Rs. 1051.00 per month plus taxes. Subsequently on 1/06/1970 the cellar portion admeasuring about 475 sq. feet was also let to the opponents at Rs. 211.00 per month plus taxes. However the pressure for additional space in view of the increase in the total number of students led the opponents to once again requ- est the petitioners to construct a second floor on the said building. The petitioners acceded to this request and constructed a second floor and let it out to the opponents with effect from 1/08/1971 at a rent of Rs. 1051.00per month plus taxes. Thus the total rent recovered by the petitioners from the opponents came to Rs. 2 814 per month plus taxes. Hardly six months had passed after the letting out of the second floor when the opponents filed an application No. 754 of 1972 for fixation of standard rent in respect of the demised premises. The opponents contended in the said application that the rent recovered by the petitioners vas excessive and that it could not exceed Rs. 800.00 per month inclusive of taxes. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the fair return which the petitioners could be allowed on their investment cannot exceed Rs. 1 667 per month plus taxes and accordingly fixed the said amount as standard rent in respect of the entire building. Both the petitioners as well as the opponents were aggrieved by this decision of the learned Judge in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmed- abad and therefore they preferred Revision Applications Nos. 23 and 24 of 1977 respectively assailing the said order. The Appellate Bench of the Court of the Small Causes Ahmedabad dismissed the landlords Revision Application No. 23 of 1977 with costs. Is he Revision Applica- tion filed by the opponents was partly allowed and the order of the trial Court fixing the standard rent of the premises at Rs. 1 667 month plus taxes was set aside and instead the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 1 317 month plus taxes. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by this order of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes in the two Revi- sion Applications have preferred the present two Revision Applications. As both these Revision Applications arise out of the same judgment they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) Before proceeding to deal with the submissions made at the Bar a brief survey of the relevant provisions of the Act may be undertaken. Sec 5 (8) defines premises as any land not being used for agricultural purposes or any building or part of a building let separately (other than a farm building) including the garden grounds garages and out-houses if any appurtenants to such building or part of a building any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of a building or any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof but shall not include a room or other accommodation in a hotel or lodging house. Sub-sec. (10) of sec. 5 defines standard rent in relation to any premises to mean.