NARAYANLAL BANSILAL Vs. VENKATRAO ANANT PAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship after stating the facts, proceeded.] Mr. Chitale contends that (1) the Court below had no jurisdiction to fix the standard rent in the manner in which it has done having regard to the provisions of the Rent Act. (2) He contents that even if it had jurisdiction it has erred in exercising it in determining the case. (3) That it made out a new case for the defendant when it held that there was no appropriation of rent and allowed accounts, (4) that it wrongly disallowed insurance premia and restoration charges, and (5) that it was not entitled to determine the question of statutory -tenancy.

(2.) THE first contention is that the Court had no jurisdiction to fix the standard rent as in this case the premises leased to the defendant were not leased prior to that date. It may be mentioned that the whole compound with all the structures was leased from January, 1940, to the National Studio at a rental of Rs. 1,700 per month.

(3.) CONSIDERING the question, apart from authorities it would seem that the standard rent which is defined under Section 5 is the presumptive standard rent inasmuch as it is made subject to Section 11, the basic line being the rent as on September 1, 1940, fetched by the premises. We say it is presumptive, for the obvious reason that even though on September 1, 1940, the premises may have been let and were fetching rent there may yet be a dispute between the landlord and the tenant in respect of the standard rent as the rent charged may not be the economical rent of the property, but subject to such cases the rent prevailing in respect of the premises on the basic date is the standard rent. No doubt in cases where it was let for the first time after the basic date the standard rent would be the rent at which it was so let. Mr. Chitale relies on Clause (a) but then Clause (c) enables the Court in a case like the present to determine the standard rent as on September 1, 1940, the entire property was let and later on it was let in parcels. Mr. Chitale emphasized the article 'the' before the word 'premises' in Clause (c) and contends that the use of this article must show that the Legislature intended the identity of premises.