LAWS(ALL)-1961-8-44

RAM DAS GUPTA Vs. SHIVA CHARAN LAL

Decided On August 31, 1961
RAM DAS GUPTA Appellant
V/S
SHIVA CHARAN LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The undisputed facts in this case are as follows: The opposite party is the owner of the house in dispute and let it out to the applicant sometime in 1931 at the rent of Rs. 300 per annum. In 1951 he filed a suit under Sec. 5(4) of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act for fixation of the rent of the house at Rs. 1,200 per annum, pleading that it was assessed by the Municipal Board to an annual rent of Rs. 480 in 1937 and of Rs. 600 in 1944, that the reasonable annual rent of it was grossly inadequate, that its rental value was much more than Rs. 300 per annum, that the applicant refused to enhance it to a reasonable amount and that the cause of action accured for the suit on the refusal. The suit was contested by the applicant on the grounds that the fair rental value of the house was not more than Rs. 300 per annum, that the transaction of rent between the parties was not unfair and consequently the agreed rent of Rs. 300 per annum could not be varied by the court and that the court could not fix the rent at a figure beyond the limits laid down in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 5. The learned Civil Judge repelled the contention of the applicant that he could not fix the rent at a figure exceeding the limit mentioned in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 5, found that the fair rental value of the house was Rs. 840 per annum and that the transaction in which the agreed rent was fixed was unfair and decreed the suit fixing the rent at Rs. 840 per annum. This revision application is filed against his judgment.

(2.) We are concerned with the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act as it stood in 1951. Under sub-sec. (1) the rent payable for an accommodation is the agreed rent; the agreed rent in the present case was Rs. 300 per annum. sub-sec. (2) provides that where the landlord wishes to enhance the agreed rent he may by notice in writing enhance it to "an amount not exceeding the reasonable annual rent: Provided that the enhanced rent shall not exceed the rent, if any, payable on Oct. 1, 1946, by more than 50 per cent thereof." According to this provision the opposite party could enhance the agreed rent of Rs. 300 per annum by a notice in writing to an amount not exceeding the reasonable annual rent and also not exceeding Rs. 450 per annum. There are two limits imposed upon his power to enhance the rent: the amount of the enhanced rent must not exceed that of the reasonable annual rent and also must not exceed the agreed rent plus 50 per cent thereon. The reasonable annual rent in the present case was, as explained in Sec. 2 (f) (1), Rs. 600 per annum (Rs. 480 municipal assessment, plus 25 per cent thereon). Thus the opposite party could by a notice enhance the rent under sub-sec. (2) to a figure not exceeding Rs. 450 per annum. So long as the amount of the reasonable annual rent exceeded Rs. 450 it did not matter what it was, the opposite party could not enhance the rent to a figure above Rs. 450. In other words, if the amount of the reasonable annual rent was more than the amount of the agreed rent plus 50 per cent thereon the landlord could not fix the enhanced rent at more than the agreed rent plus 50 per cent thereon, regardless of the amount of the reasonable annual rent. Sub-Sec. (4) of Sec. 5 read as follows:

(3.) The cause of action for a suit by a landlord as contemplated by sub-sec. (4) is simply the inadequacy of the reasonable annual rent; all that he has to allege in the plaint, in order to make it entertainable by the court, is that the reasonable annual rent is inadequate. If he makes this allegation he can seek the relief of fixation of rent. When fixing the rent, the court is required to take into account the prewar rent, the reasonable annual rent, the prevailing rent of similar accommodation etc., vide Sec. 6. There is no difficulty in a case in which the reasonable annual rent does not exceed the agreed rent plus 50 per cent thereon; in such a case the landlord can by a suit get the rent fixed at a figure at which he would have himself enhanced it by a notice had the reasonable annual rent stood at the figure of the agreed rent plus 50 per cent thereon. Thus in the present case if the reasonable annual rent was, say, Rs. 400 the opposite party could in the suit ask the court to fix the rent on the basis that it was Rs. 450. If it was Rs. 400, by a notice under sub-sec. (2) he could not enhance the rent to more than Rs. 400, and if it was inadequate the Legislature provided him the remedy by permitting him to file a suit for fixation of rent on the ground that it was inadequate. He could not, by his notice, exceed the amount of the agreed rent plus 50 per cent but he also could not exceed the amount of the reasonable annual rent; the Legislature thought that it would be hard upon him if the amount of the reasonable annual rent happened to be inadequate for no fault of his and so provided the remedy in the shape of a suit under sub-sec. (4). But, if the amount of the reasonable annual rent was already more than the agreed rent plus 50 per cent thereon, there was nothing to be gained by filing a suit at all, because regardless of its amount he could not enhance the rent to more than the agreed rent plus 50 per cent. The Legislature decided that in no case should the increase be more than 50 per cent of the agreed rent. This limit upon the right of the landlord to get the rent enhanced was to operate in every case and had nothing to do with, or did not depend upon, the amount of the reasonable annual rent; whatever might be the amount of the reasonable annual rent, he could not get the agreed rent enhanced by more than 50 per cent. In the face of this limit upon his power, the Legislature could not have permitted him to file a suit under sub-sec. (4) if the amount of the reasonable annual rent was already in excess of the limit. There must be some amount of reasonable annual rent which the landlord considered adequate; if the reasonable annual rent is already of that amount or more he has no cause of action for a suit under sub-sec. (4). If he does not allege in the suit that the amount of the reasonable annual rent is inadequate, the plaint would be returned to him under Or. VII, R. 11 C.P.C. as disclosing no cause of action. If the reasonable annual rent is already adequate, according to his own case, he cannot file a suit under sub-sec. (4) and cannot get the rent fixed at all. If, on the other hand, the reasonable annual rent is less than the amount that he considers adequate, but exceeds the agreed rent by more than 50 per cent, he cannot be in a better position than he would be in if the reasonable annual rent was at the figure that he himself considers adequate. If the reasonable annual rent, which he considers adequate, exceeds the agreed rent by more than 50 per cent, he cannot file a suit. There is no reason for saying that he can file a suit when the reasonable annual rent, which he considers inadequate, exceeds the agreed rent by more than 50 per cent. In this case the opposite party considers that Rs. 1,200 would be the adequate reasonable annual rent. The reasonable annual rent being actually Rs. 600 he could say in the plaint that it was inadequate, but, if it had actually been Rs. 1,200 he could not say that it was inadequate and would have no cause of action for filing the suit at all and, therefore, would not be in a position to get the rent fixed by the court at a figure higher than Rs. 450. By his own notice he could enhance the rent to Rs. 450 and, in order to get Rs. 450, he did not have to go to court at all. It would be necessary for him to go to court if he wanted more than Rs. 450, but, if the reasonable annual rent was already adequate, he could not get any relief from the court. There is no reason why he should get a relief from the court and have the rent fixed at more than Rs. 450 merely because the reasonable annual rent actually is less than Rs. 1,200. There is no rational or logical connection whatsoever between his right to get the relief of fixation of rent from the court and the fact that the amount of the reasonable annual rent actually is inadequate except that the inadequacy prevents his enhancing the rent by nature to the full extent. If the reasonable annual rent had been Rs. 1,200 and he could by a notice enhance the rent to Rs. 450 only, it would be a case of greater disparity between the amount of the reasonable annual rent and the amount to which he can enhance the rent by his own action than if the amount of the reasonable annual rent was Rs. 600 and by his own notice he could enhance the agreed rent to Rs. 450. It would be an anomalous position if he was granted a right to go to court and get the rent fixed when the disparity is small and denied the right when it is great. If the reasonable annual rent is Rs. 10,000 the opposite party cannot by a notice get more than Rs. 450; to give him a right to get the rent fixed at more than Rs. 450 merely because the amount of the reasonable annual rent is Rs. 451 would be an absurdity. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Legislature did not contemplate a suit by the land-lord under sub-sec. (4) if the amount of the reasonable annual rent exceeded the amount of the agreed rent plus 50 per cent thereon; it must have intended that the limit imposed by the proviso to sub-sec. (2) was to operate in every case and that in no case, whether the rent was fixed or enhanced under sub-sec. (2), or fixed under sub-sec. (4), could the rent be fixed at, or enhanced to a figure exceeding the agreed rent by more than 50 per cent.