SINAEEN MOHIDDIN MALBARI Vs. KAUSHAL KISHORE BHAGWANDAS SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisional applications raise a short question about the proper Court -fees leviable on cross -objections preferred by the tenants in both the cases. The learned District Judge, before whom these cross -objections were preferred, has directed the tenants to pay adequate Court -fees on the footing that the decree for the payment of arrears of rent which has been passed against them is a decree for the payment of money and it is necessary that the cross -objecting respondents should declare what amount they propose to dispute out of the decretal amount and should pay Court -fees on it on an ad valorem basis. This view is challenged by the petitioners in both the cases before me.

(2.) IT would be convenient to mention the material facts leading to both therevisional applications. Civil Revision Application No. 863 of 1955 arises from Civil Suit No. 1465 of 1953 filed by the landlord against the tenant for ejectment. In this suit the landlord claimed, arrears of rent as well. The arrears of rent were claimed at the rate of Rs. 150 per month which was the contractual rent agreed between the parties. In this suit the tenant pleaded by his written statement that the contractual rent was in excess of the standard rent and he prayed that the standard rent should be fixed in respect of the premises in suit. The learned trial Judge held that the contractual rent was not unreasonable or excessive and he passed a decree against the tenant for the payment of Rs. 4,000 and odd by way of arrears of rent. The claim for ejectment made by the landlord was rejected. Against the decree refusing ejectment the landlord preferred an appeal to the District Court, and when the notice of this appeal was served on the respondent, he preferred cross -objections on December 10, 1954. The learned Judge has called upon the respondent -tenant to pay Court -fees on the basis which I have already indicated, and the tenant, by his present Revision Application No. 863 of 1955, disputes the validity of the order made by the learned District Judge.

(3.) IN dealing with the question about the proper Court -fees leviable on such cross -objections, it would be necessary in the first instance to consider whether it is open to the parties to file cross -objections in appeals arising from orders made under the Rent Act. If the provisions relating to appeals are considered literally, it would appear that these provisions do not in terms authorise the filing of cross -objections. But that would not be decisive of the question as to whether a respondent can file cross -objections where an appeal has been provided for against certain specified orders made under the Rent Act. Section 29 of Act LVII of 1947 provides for appeals, and it is common ground that where a landlord claims ejectment and arrears of rent from his tenant and the claim is either wholly or partly decreed, an appeal lies against the decree. Section 29(1),cl. (b), provides that in the mofussil an appeal shall lie from a decree or order made by a Judge of the Court of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, or by the Court of the Civil Judge deemed to be the Court of Small Causes under Clause (c) of Sub -section (2) of Section 28, or by a Civil Judge exercising such, jurisdiction, to the District Court. Thus there is no doubt that the landlord was entitled to prefer an appeal against the decree which was passed in the suit filed by him. Under Section 11 of the Act, it is open to the tenant to apply for the fixation of standard rent. Proviso (III) to Section 29(1)(b), however, lays down that no appeal shall lie against an order made upon an application for fixing the standard rent or for determining the permitted increases in respect of any premises except in a suit or proceeding in which an appeal lies. This proviso has been added by Section 17(1) of Bombay Act LXI of 1953. It would be noticed that the standard rent can be determined either on an application made by the tenant under Section 11 for the purpose of getting the standard rent determined or in a suit or proceeding in which the tenant can make an appropriate pleading and the Court may proceed to deal with the question of the fixation of standard rent. If an order is made determining the standard rent, not in a suit or proceeding, but on an application made by the tenant for the purpose of getting the standard rent determined, no appeal lies against the order made by the learned Judge. Thus it is clear that the decree passed by the learned trial Judge against the landlord was appealable as a decree, whereas the order passed by the Civil Judge on the application for the fixation of standard rent which had been made by the tenant in Civil Revision Application No. 1558 of 1955 was not appealable as such, if it is held that the standard rent had been fixed in the application itself and not in the suit with which it was ultimately consolidated.