COLLECTOR OF DARJEELING Vs. C MACKERTICH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the Collector of Darjeeling and arises out of certain proceedings before an Arbitrator appointed under Section 19, Defence of India Act. The dispute between the parties concerns the compensation payable in respect of the disputed premises known as Caroline Villa. On 1-11-1944, in pursuance of an order of requisition made under Rule 75A, Defence of India Rules, possession of the disputed premises was taken over by the Government. We have been informed by the learned advocates appearing on both sides that the said premises has been derequisitioned.

(2.) The premises in question was in the occupation of one Mr. Hall who used to pay rent of Rs. 200 per month, but by virtue of certain proceedings taken under the Bengal House Rent Control Order the rent of the said premises was fixed at Rs. 256 from 1-5-1944. At the date of the taking of possession, therefore, the tenant was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 256 as the rent of the said premises. As the parties could not agree as to the compensation to be paid, the matter went before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator was of the opinion that the said rent assessed under the Bengal House Rent Control Order was not a fair rent. In his opinion the fair rent of the premises would be Rs. 400 per month and he assessed compensation on that basis. Against this order the Collector of Darjeeling has preferred this appeal.

(3.) The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submitted that in view of the Rent Control Order which was in force at the time of requisition compensation should have been assessed at Rs. 256 per month and that in any event the rent so fixed should be taken to be fair rent, as there is no suggestion that the rent paid in December 1941 was not fair rent. Mr. Hiralal Chakravarty appearing for the respondent, however, contended that as the claimants are entitled to get fair rent on requisition, the Court is competent to estimate the fair rent payable and to award compensation on that basis. It is now firmly established that the effect of Rule 75A (4), Defence of India Rules, read with Section 19, Defence of India Act, is that in case of a requisition the claimant is entitled to get compensation for the interest in land which was requisitioned on the principle embodied in Section 23 (1), Land Acquisition Act. In the case of Province of Bengal v. Board of Trustees for Improvement of Calcutta, 50 C. W. N. 825 at p. 834 : (A. I. R. (33) 1946 Cal. 416), Mitter J., observed that in such a case compensation has to be assessed at the value of his possession, and that such value is measured by the fair rent to be paid in respect of the premises. If the fair rent is capable of direct assessment the Court has to proceed on that basis. Ordinarily, rent which is being paid in respect of certain premises at any point of time may be regarded as the fair rent payable therefor. There is no suggestion that the rent which was being paid in December 1941 was unfair. As such the rent assessed by the Controller under Section 6, Bengal House Rent Control Order, may be taken to be fair rent in the present case.