DWARIKA DHISH JI MAHARAJ Vs. RAM SAJIWAN TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision questioning the validity of the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif dismissing a suit instituted by the Plaintiff Applicant Under Sub -section (4) of Section 5 of UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act) for determination of the rent of a certain godown situate in Mohalla Nayaganj, Kanpur.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the Plaintiff Applicant is the landlord of the godown in dispute and the Defendant opposite party Ram Sajiwan Tripathi is the tenant by virtue of an allotment order obtained by him on 21 -3 -1964. There is no dispute between the parties that the godown in dispute is a part of a big building belonging to the Plaintiff, constructed before 1st July 1946. There is further no dispute between the parties that immediately before the passing of the allotment order in favour of the Defendant one Siddhnath Sehgal kept the godown as tenant and was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 45/ - per month. There arose a dispute between the Plaintiff landlord and the Defendant tenant on the rate of rent. The Defendant as tenant was not prepared to pay monthly rent -of Rs. 45/ -, but the landlord demanded the rent at that rate. The Defendant then made an application before the District Magistrate Under Section 3 -A of the Act for determination of the annual reasonable rent of the godown. The Rent Control Officer who had the delegated powers of the District Magistrate, after hearing both the parties determined the annual reasonable rent at the monthly rental of Rs. 8.90 Paisa. The Plaintiff being aggrieved instituted a suit Under Sub -section (4) of Section 5 of the Act in the court of the Munsif. It was pleaded by the Plaintiff that the annual reasonable rent fixed by the District Magistrate was inadequate. It was further pleaded that it was incorrectly fixed, as the building of which the godown was a part was never assessed to Municipal assessment. It was prayed that the court may determine the proper rent.

(3.) ON issue No. (1), which was the main issue, the learned Munsif found that the annual reasonable rent was correctly determined by the District Magistrate as the godown in dispute was a part of the building which had been assessed by the Municipal Board. On the measurement of the area covered by the godown the learned Munsif found that the proportional rent was Rs. 8.90 Paisa per month. But the learned Munsif refused to consider any further evidence on record in determining the fair and reasonable rent for the disputed godown as he thought that under the law he could not take those circumstances into consideration. On the other issues the learned Munsif found in favour of the Plaintiff. In view of the finding on issue No. 1 the suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed. Since the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif is unappealable, hence this revision Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court.