VIMLA RANI Vs. IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by determination of standard rent u/Sec. 3 (k) (i) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 the petitioner who is the landlady of Bungalow no. 123, situated in Cantonment Area, Roorkee Road, Meerut Cantt., has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was claimed by her that respondent no. 3, who was an allottee, was occupying the best part of the Bungalow located in Aristocratic locality with best market, club etc. and, therefore, he should pay a rent of Rs. 260/- per month. Due to this demand the respondent filed an application u/Sec. 8 (1) of the Act which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority who found that the standard rent of the portion occupied by respondent no. 1 came to Rs. 153/- only but considering the enhancement in the market value and that the building was assessed in 1972 to 1975 at Rs. 12,090/- the respondent should pay Rs. 42/-per month. In appeal the respondent conceded that he was not inclined to contest the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority and was willing to pay Rs. 42/- per month. The appellate authority, therefore, dismissed both the appeals that is, appeal filed by petitioner and the tenant.

(2.) IT has been urged by learned counsel for petitioner that determination of standard rent under U. P. Act XIII of 1972 has to be done u/Secs. 8 and 9 read with Section 3 (k). According to him before Section 3 (k) could be applied a building has to satisfy two conditions, that is it was a building governed under the old Act and let out at time of commencement of Act XIII of 1972. According to him as neither of these conditions were satisfied the application filed on behalf of respondent was not maintainable. Admittedly, the premises in dispute are situated in Cantonment Area, to which the provisions of Rent Control Act III of 1947 were applied by the Central Government by issuing a notification u/Sec. 3 of the Cantnonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act 57 of 1947). What is urged, however, is that as soon as Act III of 1947 was repealed by Act XIII of 1972 the notification extending Act III of 1947 to Cantonment Area automatically came to an end. Therefore, on the date when this Act came into force the old Act i. e. Act III of 1947 did not apply to the premises situated in Cantonment Area. According to learned counsel the position did not in any manner improve by a subsequent notification issued by Central Government on 3rd April, 1972, as according to him, on the date of commencement of the Act that is the day when Act XIII of 1972 came into force the provisions of Act III of 1947 should have applied to the premises in dispute. Reliance has been placed on certain observations made by Division Bench in Lekhraj v. IV Additional District Judge, 1982 AWC 235. The submission does not appear to be correct. Sec. 3 (k) reads as under :-

(3.) EVEN then the order is liable to be quashed as the authorities have committed manifest error of law in calculating standard rent u/Sec. 3 (k) (b) of the Act. It having been found that there was no agreed rent but the building having been constructed prior to 1946 as was clear from 1940-41 annual assessment the standard rent had to the determined under clause (b) of Section 3 (k) (i). But while calculating it the prescribed authority held that reasonable annual rent was Rs. 376.75 p. that is, Rs. 300/- annual assessment of 1940-44 plus 25 per cent. And as opposite party was tenant of 552.02 covered area out of total constructed area of 1325.8 sq. feet, rent of his share come to Rs. 1.63 p only. But the annual assessment of premises in 1972-75 was Rs. 12,000/-. And as there was eight tenements apart from opposite party and petitioner the monthly assessment came to Rs. 1007.50 p. The opposite party being in possession of l/24th only was liable to pay Rs. 42.