HRIDOY KRISHNA Vs. MRINAL BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued at the instance of a landlord against a re-fixation of rent. What happened was that these very premises were let out to the same tenant as part of a bigger premises which included one room more in December, 1941. The landlord by surrender from the tenant took this other room and had let it out at Rs. 15/-. These facts are not in dispute. There was a rent fixation case under the Act of 1948. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate court decided that the rent which would be reasonably payable, not the rent actually payable, would be Rs. 140/- per month from 1-12-1941. After making certain additions which are difficult to understand, the rent was assessed at Rs. 182-14-0. We are not concerned with these additions. As soon as the 1950 Act came into operation, there was an application by the tenant for re-fixation of the rent, the tenant contending that the rent as actually payable for the tenancy in December 1941 was Rs. 120/-and then with the addition now allowable the rent would be Rs. 132/-.

(2.) Mr. Ghose has pointed out that if Schedule A can be applied & none of the other clauses mentioned from 9(1)(d) to 9(1)(g) can be applied then rent has got to be fixed on the basis of Schedule A. Now, Schedule A is applicable because these premises under the very same tenant were actually let out and the rent actually payable could not be more than Rs. 120/-. On the other hand, the landlord having let out another room for Rs. 15/- the courts rightly considered that the rent actually payable in December 1941 would be Rs. 105/-. Then tha courts allowed two increments namely as there had been previously an increment of 10 per cent, and as this was a residential house let out at over Rs. 100/- another fresh increment of ten per cent, bringing up the total to about Rs. 126/- and odd.

(3.) Mr. Das Gupta has contended that the question of what is reasonably payable as rent is 'res judicata'. The question of what would be reasonably payable as rent is different from what is rent actually payable. There has been no decision previously as to what was the rent actually payable. In the present case, Mr. Ghose has pointed out that Section 9(1)(e) can have no application because the premises were let out though it may be as part of another premises to the same tenant so that the relationship of landlord and tenant also was the same and he has pointed out that the decision in 'Bata Shoe and Co. Ltd. v. Narayan Das Mullick', has no application as the question is entirely different. There the question was of two different tenancies under two different tenants being combined. Here the question is that single tenancy has continued though shorn of one room and the rent of the one room is known. Therefore, the rent actually payable is known. Under the circumstances, Mr. Das Gupta's contention as to 'res judicata' cannot be supported.