AIJAZ HUSSAIN Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revisions arise out of four suits brought by different plaintiffs agasnst a common defendant and have been filed on behalf of the defendant for assessment of a reasonable rent under Section 5 (4), U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947 ).

(2.) THE plaintiffs were refugees from Pakistan who came to Meerut in the winter of 1947-48. They were without shelter and were staying at the railway station. The defendant offered to let out some accommodation to the plaintiffs, which the plaintiffs accepted on the terms proposed. After the Control of Rent and Eviction Act was passed the plaintiffs filed the suits, out of which these revisions have arisen, for assessment of reasonable rent. The lower court has found that the agreements were unfair and has fixed a reasonable rent for the accommodation in possession of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel has challenged the finding as regards the unfairness of the transaction on the ground that the mere fact that the rent agreed upon was much higher than the fair or reasonable rent would lead to no conclusion about the unfairness of the transaction. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of a learned single Judge in -- 'agarwal and Co. v. City Board, Dehra Dun', air 1953 All 175 (A ). It may be that in every case it may not be possible to hold that the transaction was unfair merely because the plaintiff had agreed to pay rent at a higher rate than the reasonable rent, but the learned single Judge could not have intended to hold that the rent agreed to be paid is not a circumstance to be taken into consideration in dealing with that question. The lower court was, to my mind, justified in taking this circumstance into consideration and in hold-ing that this circumstance along with other circumstances and the evidence showed to its satisfaction that the transaction was unfair. I do not think that there is any defect of jurisdiction and this point cannot, therefore, be raised by learned counsel.

(3.) THE other point urged by learned counsel is that the lower court erred in fixing the reasonable rent as the accommodation in suit was assessed to Municipal tax at a higher rate. Firstly, this is not a question of jurisdiction which would entitle this Court to interfere with the finding of the lower court under Section 115, Civil P. C. , and secondly, learned counsel was not able to point out from any document on the record that the accommodation was assessed to Municipal tax on a valuation of Rs. 357- per mensem. Learned counsel has relied on a plea to this effect taken by his client in the written statement, but a plea in the written statement is no evidence in the case.