M L DAS AND SONS Vs. SAMPATMULL BOTHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule arises out of a proceeding for standardisation of rent started by the tenant petitioner. The proceeding has had a long and chequered career and the circumstances under which the matter has now come up to this Court are of an unusual character. The proceeding started as far back as April 11, 1951. It had its usual run from the Rent Controller to the Appellate Judge and then to this Court.

(2.) The Rent Controller standardised the rent under the proviso to Section 9(1)(f) of the Rent Control Act, 1950. On appeal it was held that the case was one under Section 9(1)(g) of the said Act and as the learned Judge had no materials before him for standardising the rent under that section, he dismissed the tenant's application.

(3.) On being moved against this appellate decision, this Court reversed the said decision and held that the case was quite within Section 9(1)(f) of the Act and that, therefore, the residuary Section 9(1)(g) could not apply. This Court, however, found, on the previous occasion, on an examination of the respective cases of the parties before it in the light of the materials on record that the disputed premises was not part of any construction within the meaning of the proviso to Section 9(1)(f) of the Act and in that view of the matter this Court set aside the decisions of both the appellate Judge and the Rent Controller and sent back the case to the Rent Controller with a definite direction that the rent was to be standardised under the main part of Section 9(1)(f).