VIJAY KUMAR MISRA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by the landlord, who were the petitioners in the writ petition for recalling the judgment of this court dated October 24, 1975. I have heard Sri S.P. Gupta, counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.M. Majid, counsel for the parties. It appears that after hearing counsel for the parties the mistake committed in the judgment dated October 24, 1975 is apparent and is liable to be set aside. The facts have already been stated in the said judgment. It is suffice to mention that the dispute is with regard to the fixation of rent. The building was admittedly constructed in 1940 and was let out to the respondent No. 3 in 1956. It is also common case of the parties that this building was assessed for the first time in the year 1960 under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and its annual rental value was determined. In accordance with the annual rental value determined in the said assessment year, the rent which was being paid by the petitioner was Rs. 19/ -. On the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 the petitioners filed an application for fixation of standard rent under Sec. 9 of the aforesaid Act. The application was contested by the respondent. The application was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed. Hence the writ petition.

(2.) The question that needs determination in this case is about the standard rent payable by the respondent No. 3. The word 'Standard rent' has been defined in Sec. 3(k). The clause relied upon by Sri S.P. Gupta, counsel for the petitioners, in support of his claim is Sec. 3(k)(1)(a). The said definition is as under: - -

(3.) He submitted that as the building in question was for the first time assessed in the year 1960, the reasonable annual rent in accordance with the definition of the said word given in old Act would be its Municipal assessment plus 25 percent, thereon. In this way he asserted that the annual reasonable rent would be Rs. 23/75. He submitted that he would be entitled 25 percent, thereon, in this way the rent payable to him is to have further of Rs. 29 -60 in accordance with Sec. 3(k)(i)(a). The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be well founded. Clause (a) of Sec. 3(k)(i) entitles him to get annual reasonable rent plus 25 percent. As the annual rent was Rs. 23.75 n.p. adding 25 percent, thereon, the total amount payable by the respondent No. 3 should be Rs. 29.68 n.p.