RAMRICHPAL JHUNJHUNWALLA Vs. JAGADISH PROSAD LALOO PROSAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two petitions in revision by a landlord against two appellate judgments of the Judge of the Sixth Bench of the Court of Small Causes Calcutta, reversing in appeal an order of the First Additional Rent Controller.

(2.) An application was filed before the Rent Controller by the tenant for fixation of standard rent. The premises in question, it is admitted by both parties, form part of a larger building not yet entirely constructed and those premises and the portion of the building up to now constructed were all constructed after 31-12-1949. The Rent Controller directed fixation of rent under Sections 9 (1) (e) or 9 (1) (g). As I have already pointed out in another decision, two sub-clauses of the same section cannot be applied to the same proceeding In the proceedings it is not clear whether he actually applied Clause (e) or Clause (g) of Section 9 (1).

(3.) Both the landlord and tenant appealed. There were two appeals. Hence two revisions. In both the appeals the appellate Court directed that the fixation must be under Section 9(1)(f) and remanded the case for the purpose of such fixation.