INDRA KUMAR KARNANI Vs. SUNDARDAS THACKERSEY AND BROS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule raises an interesting question of first impression under the Rent Control Act of 1950.

(2.) The facts are simple. The opposite party is the tenant in respect of Godown No. 9B, situated at 13C, Lower Chitpore Road and was the tenant in respect of the same premises in December 1941 as well. In 1941, the rent was RSection 3307- per month, as has been found by the authorities below. It has also been found that with effect from December, 1948, the rent was increased to Rs. 508-3-0 per month. On 30-8-1950, the opposite party made an application for standardization of the rent and the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs 363/- per month. He arrived at that figure by adding ten per cent, to the contractual rent of Rs. 330/- which was being paid in December, 1941. He declined to add anything more, although a rent of Rs. 508-3-0 per month was being paid since December, 1948, for the reason that three years had not elapsed from the date on which the increased rent had been first paid. It would appear that the Rent Controller was computing the three years by reference to the date on which he was making his order. The landlord preferred an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller and the only point urged in the appeal was that the rent had not been correctly fixed in accordance with law. That contention meant that a further percentage should have been added because of the payment of an increased rent from December, 1948. The learned Judge repelled that contention and the ground given by him was that the increased rent had been paid from December, 1948 and "from that date three years had not elapsed when the Act of 1950 came into force on 31-3-1950". The appellate Judge, therefore, took the date on which the Act had come into operation as the date by reference to which the period of three years was to be computed. The landlord thereafter moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.

(3.) It was contended by Mr. Bhose, who appears on behalf of the landlord petitioner, that the learned Judge had overlooked the second alternative in Para. (3) (b) of Schedule A, Rent Control Act. The words there are "when the said period of three years relevant to the case has elapsed or elapses". Mr. Bhose contended that some meaning had to be given to the word "elapses" and the true meaning of that word, according to him, was that it was intended to cover a case where the period of three years, although it had not expired at the date of the application, might yet expire during the course of the proceedings. By the course of the proceedings Mr. Bhose meant the whole course up to the date of the final disposal by the last Court.