KAILASH GENERAL STORES Vs. FIRM GANESHILAL GULABCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the disposal of the two civil appeals Nos. 54/87 and 45/87. These appeals have been preferred by the tenants against the common landlord and learned Court below decided two appeals by the common impugned order. The appellants-tenants filed applications before the Rent Controlling Authority, Janjgir under Section 10 of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act for the fixation of standard rent of the disputed accommodation. Both the accommodations are non-residential and both the tenants in the civil suits filed against them for eviction had compromised and the rate of rent was increased with regard to Ashwani Kumar appellant from Rs. 70/- to Rs. 45/- p.m and with regard to Murarilal appellant from Rs. 60/- p.m to Rs. 200/- p.m. It was after the compromise decree that the applications were filed before the Rent Controlling Authority for the fixation of standard rent.

(2.) AN objection has been raised by the Counsel for the respondent that once under a compromise a civil Court has decreed the suit for the recovery of the rent on the basis of agreed rent, the Rent Controlling Authority had no jurisdiction to fix the standard rent. I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the respondent. The provisions of Sections 7 and 10 of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act are independent. The Rent Controlling Authority is not precluded from fixing the standard rent despite there being agreed rent. The appellant's contention is that the learned First Appellate Court erred in law in dismissing the application on the ground that there was no material placed by the parties for fixing the standard rent. The learned appellate Court has misconstrued the provisions of Sections 7 and 10 of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. Admittedly, the suit portion was not let out nor there is evidence that it existed on or before the 1st of January, 1948. There is also evidence to show what could be the rent that could be realised on 1st of January, 1948. The copy of Municipal Assesment Register is also not on record. What has been filed is a certificate and an entry of proforma under Rule 4 of Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Sampati Kar Adhiniyam, 1964. This also relates to the year 1975. No further period is given as to by whom the said assessment was made and from which period to which period but the learned lower appellate Court did not consider that if it was not possible to determine the standard rent under Section 7 of the Accommodation Control Act, it could still be decided and fixed under Section 10 of the Act. Sub-section 4 of Section 10 provides the situation when the Rent Controlling Authority may fix the standard rent as would be reasonable having regard to the situation, the locality and condition of the accommodation. The regard could also be had to the standard rent fixed with regard to similar accommodation. This aspect has not been considered by the learned lower appellate Court. The application for the fixation of standard rent in the circumstances could not be dismissed outright. The learned appellate Court failed to consider the provisions of Section 10 of the Act in passing the impugned order. When an application is filed before the Rent Controlling Authority, an enquiry is anticipated by the Authority as was held in Seth Jankidas v. Ganpat and others, 1955 NLJ SN 310. The learned lower appellate Court was expected to give cogent reasons for setting aside the finding arrived at by the Rent Controlling Authority.

(3.) IN the result, the appeals succeed and other of the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Bilaspur is set aside and case is sent back to the lower appellate Court with a direction to pass a fresh order after the consideration of the material and the provisions of law on providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Appeal allowed.