RAJ BAHADUR Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, Raj Bahadur, filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif, Kasganj, under Section 5 (4), Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 3 of 1947, alleging that the rent agreed upon between him and the landlord was higher than the annual reasonable rent, the agreed rent being Rs. 960/per annum at Rs. 80/- a month and the annual reasonable rent being Rs. 156/- at Rs. 13/- a month. The Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the house in suit was constructed after 1-10-1946 and that in view of Section 3a of U. P. Act 3 of 1947 no reasonable annual rent could be said to be fixed with respect to the house, as the District Magistrate had not fixed any rent under that section. He did not, therefore, consider any other fact which would have been necessary to consider if he was going to give relief under Section 5 (4 ).

(2.) THE applicant has filed this revision. Two points are urged. One is that the view of the learned munsif about the necessity of the applicant's first going to the District Magistrate for fixing the annual rent under Section 3a is wrong, and the other is that the Munsif had no jurisdiction over this suit as the annual rent was Rs. 960/-, much above Rs. 500/- upto which valuation the Munsif could have jurisdiction under Section 5 (4) of the Act. I do not agree with both these contentions.

(3.) IT was necessary for the success of the applicant's case that he should prove that the agreed rent of Rs. 80/- a month was higher than the annual reasonable rent. "reasonable annual rent" is defined in Section 2, Clause (f) with respect to accommodation constructed before 1-7-1946. Section 3a of the Act provides for the fixation of the reasonable annual rent by the District magistrate in case of an accommodation constructed after 30-6-1946. In the absence of any such fixation of the reasonable annual rent by the District Magistrate the civil Court cannot take any amount as being the reasonable annual rent. The mere fact that in deciding the case under section 5 (4) of the Act the civil Court will have to take the same facts into consideration in view of Section 6 (1) (b) of the Act as the District Magistrate has to take into consideration in view of section 3a, Sub-section (2), cl. (a) does not mean that the civil Court can first fix the annual rent, taking into consideration what is mentioned in Section 6, then call it a reasonable annual rent, then decide that the agreed rent is higher than such rent and lastly decide to fix the same rent as the annual rent. I am, therefore, of opinion that the learned Munsif was right in coming to she conclusion that the applicant had failed to establish what the reasonable annual rent for this house was.