SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. PURUSHOTTAM SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by order dated 29-6-2009 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Sagar in M.A. No. 01/2009 affirming and confirming the order dated 13-10-2008 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority in Case No. 1-A/90(1)2007-08 rejecting the application filed by the appellant for increasing the rent. Undisputedly, the respondents are the tenants of the appellant and are in occupation of a shop situated at Gandhi Chowk Ward, Bada Bazar, opposite Paras Talkies, Main Road, Sagar, having been inducted as such by the appellant in the year 1960. It is also undisputed that the rent of the accommodation was initially fixed at the rate of Rs. 40/- by the Rent Controlling Authority by order dated 10-7-1975, being aggrieved by which the appellant had taken up proceedings which were ultimately decided by this Court in S.A. No. 51/1976 on 12-3-1982 in which the standard rent of the accommodation was fixed @ Rs. 60/- per month and therefore, since the very beginning the respondents have been paying rent of the accommodation @ Rs. 60/- per month.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accommodation in question was let out to the respondents in the year 1960 and the rent was fixed @ Rs. 60/- per month. It is submitted that since 1960 the respondents are continuing to pay rent @ Rs. 60/- per month and in spite of lapse of more than 50 years they continued to do so though the rent in the area in question has increased several folds and in such circumstances, the application for increase of rent could not have been dismissed by the Court below and the authority concerned.

(3.) It is further submitted that the provisions of the Act permit the appellant to file an application seeking increase of rent which has to be considered in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Act and cannot be dismissed only on the ground that the standard rent has already been fixed at the initial stage. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the increase in rent cannot be limited to 10% as mentioned in section 8(1) of the Act, moreso, as section 8(1) of the Act, applies only to limited instances where the landlord/tenant has incurred expenditure for improvement, addition or structural alteration of the accommodation and wishes to recover cost of the same. It is submitted that the Courts below have not considered the other parts of section 8 of the Act.