CHOWRINGHEE PROPERTIES, LTD Vs. BENGAL STORES, LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Rules arise out of a proceeding for standardisation of rent. The premises in question are premises No. 8A, Chowringhee Place, Calcutta, and the proceeding started while the Rent Control Act of 1948 was in force. The Rent Controller standardised the rent under the provisions of the said Act. There was an appeal from the decision of the Rent Controller. While the appeal was pending, the Act of 1950 came into operation and, accordingly, the rent had to be re-fixed under Section 17 of this new Act. The appellate authority has now fixed the standard rent under the provisions of 1950 Act and has standardised the same at the figure of Rs. 1,265 per month. Against this order of the appellate authority, the present Rules have been obtained by both the landlords and the tenants. Civil Revision Case No. 2427 of 1952 is the Rule obtained by the landlords and Civil Revision Case No. 2916 of 1952 is the tenants' Rule.

(2.) In this Rule Mr. Gupta urged two contentions. The first was that the appellate authority ought to have remanded the case to the Rent Controller for re-fixation of the rent under the 1950 Act, so that the parties might have got proper opportunities to place proper materials for standardisation of rent under that Act. It appears, however, that there were abundant materials on the record from which the rent could be standardised under the 1950 Act and, accordingly, I am not inclined to accept this submission that in the present case, there ought to have been a remand to the Rent Controller for the purpose of a proper standardisation of the rent. This contention, accordingly, fails and it is overruled.

(3.) The next submission that was made in support of this Rule was that the appellate authority, while fixing the standard rent under the 1950 Act and while giving it effect under Section 10 of the said Act from August, 1949, ought to have indicated also that if at any time, any question of refund or adjustment for excess payment were raised, that refund or excess payment would have to be limited to a period subsequent to the Act of 1950. I do not think that, in the circumstances of the present case, when there was no application for refund or adjustment, there was any necessity on the part of the appellate authority to give any such indication or direction. I am, accordingly, unable to accept this submission also.