CHANDMUL AGARWALLA Vs. LACHMINARAYAN DALMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are twelve Rules of a somewhat varied composition. They concern five tenancies, each in respect of one or more rooms in premises No. 124 Chattaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, and all held under the same landlord. The tenants of all the tenancies made applications for standardization of the rent and the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at certain amounts. Neither the landlord nor the tenants were satisfied and both parties preferred appeals. There were thus ten appeals. The appellate Court varied the rent to a certain extent in favour of the landlord, but did not vary it to an extent sufficient to satisfy him. As the rent was increased, naturally, the tenants were also dissatisfied with the decision of the appellate Court. Thereafter, both sides moved this Court under Section 32(4), Rent Control Act. As there had been two appeals in respect of each tenancy in the Court below, one by the tenant and the other by the landlord, there were ten applications by the tenants. The landlord, however, made only five applications. The tenants obtained Rules on all the ten applications made by them, but the landlord was granted Rules only on two of theirs. There are thus altogether twelve Rules before us.

(2.) Before proceeding further, it is necessary to dispose of a preliminary point. sometime ago, these cases were mentioned before us for an order that all of them might be heard together and because of certain observations made by us on that occasion, Mr. Gupta, who appeared on behalf of the tenants, submitted that the competency of the Rules obtained by his clients should be determined first. It appears that in each of the applications made by the tenants, it was stated that the value was "below Rs. 1,000/-". It was on that footing that the tenants went to a learned Judge, sitting singly, and obtained Rules from him. The landlord, on the other hand, valued his applications at twelve times the monthly rent and as the figure thus arrived at exceeded Rs. 2,000/-, he went to a Division Bench. It is well settled that if a Rule is issued by a learned Judge, sitting singly, in a case where, under the distribution of business in this Court, only a Division Bench can exercise Jurisdiction, the Rule issued by the Judge, sitting singly, is not a valid Rule. Accordingly, if the valuation put by the landlord on his applications was the true valuation, the Rules obtained by the tenants must be held to be Rules issued without jurisdiction.

(3.) Mr. Gupta submitted that while all this might be true, no principle had ever been laid down regarding the method of valuing applications for standardization of rent. He accordingly submitted that we should avail ourselves of the present opportunity to lay down the principle to be followed in valuing applications of this kind and Rules arising out of them.