MANIBHAI HATHIBHAI PATEL Vs. C W E ARBUTHNOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the owners of an immoveable property known as "bhadran Bhuvan" situate at Tardeo Junction, which they purchased on May 10, 1. 940. THE immoveable property consists inter alia of several shops, shops Nos. 10 to 14 whereof are the subject-matter of these proceedings. It is not stated in the petition what was the position of these shops after May 10, 1940, up to the time that the same came to be occupied by the respective parties, the only averments in the petition in this behalf which were considered relevant by the draftsman of the petition being that shop No.10 was let out to one Sakhavat Hussein on or about June 1, 1943, at a rental of Rs, 80 per month, that the front portion of shop No.11 was given to one Tukaram Tavde for occupation by leave and license of the petitioners on or about June 1, 1943, Tukaram Tavde paying a compensation for such use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 35 per month, that shop No.12 was let out to one Ramchandra & Co. on or about November 1, 1944, at a rental of Rs. 80 per month, that shop No.13 was let out to Messrs, Friendly Stores on or about May 1, 1943, on a rental of Rs. 80 per month, and that shop No.14 was let out to one Khodadad R. Irani on or about September 1, 1943, at a rental of Rs. 115 per month. THE petition does not state who were the tenants, if at all, between May 10, 1940, and the various dates above mentioned when the occupation of these various parties commenced. After setting out the parties in occupation of the several shops and when they came to occupy the same as aforesaid, the petition proceeds to state that in about December, 1943, a joint application was made by Messrs. Khodadad E. Irani. Messrs. Friendly Stores, Tukaram Tavde and one P. D. Yajnik, who was the then occupant of shop No.12, to the respondent for fixing the standard rent of the premises respectively occupied by them but that the application was dismissed by the respondent on or about January 3, 1944, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to decide the same. Nothing further appears to have transpired until November 21, 1945, when the present occupants of the shops Nos. 10 to 14 abovementioned made a joint application to the respondent, the terms whereof are relevant to note. THEy stated that they were occupying a shop galas Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of a big shop situate in "bhadran Bhuvan" and belonging to the petitioners, that the said shops which were numbered by the petitioners conveniently as shops Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 formed a single tenement in. September; 1940, and prior to that the rent charged for that single tenement which was let out to one Sorab B. Tata was Us, 120 per month which Mas the standard rent of the tenement, that the petitioners had, with a view to circumvent the provisions of the law, got that tenement divided by temporary (kutcha) wooden partitions into five tenements and had let out the same to them charging them respectively Rs. 80, Rs. 35, Rs. 80, Rs. 80 and Rs. 115 making in all Rs. 390, and that according to them the standard rent of the galas in their occupation came to Rs. 30, Rs. 10, Rs. 20, Rs. 20 and Rs. 30, respectively making in all Rs. 110. THEy, therefore, requested the respondent to institute necessary inquiries in the matter and fix up the standard rent of the tenements according to law.

(2.) ON receipt of the application dated November 21, 1945, the respondent wrote to the first petitioner on December 6, 1945, requesting him to see him on any working day with all relevant documents, as he would inquire into the charges being made as rents for the shops in the said building. The first petitioner did not appear before the respondent by December 31, 1945, and the respondent wrote to him inter alia on the said date intimating to him that as he had not complied with his request to see him in the matter of the charges being made as rents for the shops in the said building, he, the respondent, proposed to fix the standard rents as noted therein and would do so unless definite information regarding the rent at which the premises were let in September, 1940, was produced by him before January 15, 1946.

(3.) THE respondent filed his affidavit dated July 25, 1946, wherein after raising certain preliminary objections he proceeded to state that during the proceedings before him he gathered that the whole premises, parts of which were now occupied by the applicants, were originally let to one S. B. Tata by the previous owners of the property, that S. B. Tata continued to be the tenant of the premises even after the petitioners purchased the property, such tenancy continuing up to February, 1942, and that the rent paid by S. B. Tata to the petitioners was Rs. 120 per month in respect of the premises. He proceeded to state that In the course of the hearing he understood that after S. B. Tata had vacated the premises the premises were divided into five compartments and one of these compartments was again divided into two parts, one part being occupied by Tukaram Tavde and the other part by the watchman of the petitioners, and that he intimated to the petitioners that he would fix the rents of the premises in question at the next hearing, viz. June 28, 1946, and adjourned the hearing in order to give to the petitioners an opportunity of producing any evidence in their possession as to the standard rent of the premises. As regards the previous application which had been made before him in December, 1943, he stated that he had no sufficient materials to show that the rent of the premises occupied by the then applicants exceeded Rs. 80 per month or that they were parts of larger premises occupied and let as a whole and subsequently sub-divided and that he therefore did not think that he was in a position to proceed with the applications and had therefore dismissed the same.