LAXMANDAS GANESHRAM Vs. BARFI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by Shivdayal, J. , in a Second Appeal arising out of an application by the landlord under Section 10 of the M. P. Accommodation Control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for fixation of standard rent.

(2.) THE appellant Laxmandas has been occupying the shop in suit as a tenant of the respondent Mst. Barfi Bai on a monthly rent of Rs. 55/- per month. The respondent filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority under Section 10 of the Act for fixation of standard rent. Her case was that the monthly rent of the shop on 1-1-1948 was Rs. 61/- per month while the house-tax of the entire building of which the shop in suit was a part was Rs. 16/- on 1-1-1948. The tax had since been raised to Rs. 74. 50 P. The respondent claimed that the standard rent should be fixed at Rs. 104. 69 P. per month by allowing an increase of 70 per cent under Section 7 of the Act. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controlling Authority Being aggrieved thereby the respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge who determined the standard rent at Rs. 104. 69 P. per month. The appellant (tenant) thereupon filed a second appeal which came up for hearing before Shiv Dayal, J.

(3.) THE main point urged before him was that as no evidence was adduced by either party of the entry in the Municipal Assessment Register the standard rent cannot be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Section 7 (2)of the Act, and, therefore, it should have been determined under Section 10 (4) of the Act. Shivdayal, J. , was not prepared to accept this contention and was about to dismiss the appeal summarily, but he referred the question to a larger Bench in view of the decision of Razzaque, J. , in Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 1966 (Ramkrishna v. Takhanmal), D/- 8-8-1966 (Madh Fra ).