SAIPANSAHEB WD DAWOODSAHEB Vs. LAXMAN VENKATESH NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this revision application is in regard to the fixation of standard rent. The property with which we are concerned was leased out by the opponent to the applicants on 8-11-1947, for a period of three years and the rent reserved was Rs. 1,500 a year. The trial Court fixed the standard rent on the basis of this contractual rent. In appeal the learned District Judge has reduced it to Rs. 1,080 and this decision is challenged by the tenant.

(2.) Now, Mr. Datar's contention that it is1 established as a fact that this property was let out on 1-9-1940, at the rent of Rs. 600. As a matter of fact it was let out to this very tenant who has been on the premises ever since then and Mr. Datar says that once the rent at which the premises were let on 1-9-1940 is determined, the standard rent can only be that rent and no other rent, and therefore according to Mr. Datar, the learned District Judge should have fixed the standard rent of these premises at Rs. 600 and not Rs. 1,080. Now, there is one important fact to which attention might be drawn. It has been proved that between 1042 and 1945 the landlord spent Rs. 4,000 on the improvement over the building and this is the fact that the learned District Judge has taken into consideration in fixing the standard rent at Rs. 1,080. Mr. Datar says that even though the landlord may spend any amount on the improvement of the building, if the rent on 1-9-1940 was a certain amount, that amount only can be the standard rent and not the amount increased by any further amount out of consideration for the improvements made by the landlord.

(3.) Now, let us turn to the scheme of the Rent Act with regard to the fixation of standard rent. "Standard rent" is defined under Section 5(10) and under Clause (a) standard rent is the rent fixed by the. Court or the Controller -- that does not apply to the present case--and Clause (b) provides: "where the standard rent is not so fixed"--and the material part of the clause is--"The rent at which the premises were let on the 1st day of September 1940." Now, if the Sub-section stood thus, Mr. Datar would be on very strong ground and all that the Court would have to do is to determine what was the rent on 1-9-1940, and fix it as the standard rent. But the Legislature has made this subject to the provisions of Section 11, and therefore it is not as if the rent at which the premises were let on 1-9-1940, automatically becomes the standard rent. It becomes standard rent subject to the provi-, sions of Section 11 and Section 11 gives very wide jurisdiction to the Court and the operative part of Section 11(1) is: