AGARWAL AND CO Vs. CITY BOARD DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by a plaintiff whose application under Section 5 (4) of the Temporary control of Rent and Eviction Act for the fixation of rent of a shop has been dismissed by a munsif on the ground that the transaction was not unfair.

(2.) THERE is no dispute about the facts which are as follows: The opposite party, the City Board of dehradun, constructed some shops after 1-7-1946, on an open piece of land owned by it by the side of Saharanpur road near the railway station of Dehradun. They were constructed with the object of letting them out to tenants. Offers were invited for the shops, which were open for inspection by the public and were let out to the highest bidders. The shop in dispute is one of them. Several persons applied to the opposite party for it, making their own offers. One man offered Rs. 60/- per month as rent, another Rs. 75/- and a third Rs. 80/ -. The applicant appeared on the scene and presented an application to the opposite party offering Rs. 85/- per month. Not only did it voluntarily offer this rent, but it went further and offered to give security for the payment of the rent. More offers came for Rs. 86/-and Rs. 87/- per month and the applicant, within five days of its above offer, made another offer raising the rent to Rs. 90/- per month. Another - competitor offered Rs. 92/- and the applicant then offered Rs. 106/ -. All these offers were made in the space of seven days. Nobody offered more than Rs. 106/- per month and the opposite party accepted the offer and let out the shop to the applicant.

(3.) AS the shop had been constructed after 1-7-46 its reasonable annual rent could be determined only by the District Magistrate. The applicant made an application to the District Magistrate for fixing it and the District Magistrate fixed it at Rs. 204/ -. Then the applicant started proceedings under Section 5 (4) of the Act for fixation of rent, claiming that the agreed rent of Rs. 1272/- p. a. was more than the reasonable annual rent of Rs. 204/- and alleging that the transaction was unfair. The learned Munsif held that there was nothing unfair in the transaction and dismissed his application.