P.C. MALLICK Vs. BHABATOSH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises a question of interpretation of the words "currency of a standard rent" as used in clauses (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of section 9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950

(2.) On an application by the tenant for fixation of rent under the provisions of section 9 of the Rent Control Act, the Rent Controller held that the provisions of Schedule A applied and that for the purpose of this Schedule Rs. 175 should be taken to be the basic rent; and adding 20 per cent, thereto under clause (b) of paragraph (1) of Schedule A the basic rent would be Rs. 210. He further held that the provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of section 9(1) also applied to the circumstances of the case and allowed an increase of Rs. 21-10-8 in view of the increase in municipal taxes and a sum of Rs. 8-5-4 per month representing ten per cent per annum of the sum of Rs 1,000 found by him to have been spent in improving the premises. On this basis he fixed the standard rent at Rs. 271-7-8 pies. The order of the learned Rent Controller makes it clear that he fixed the rent at Rs. 249-13 with effect from the month of Aug., 1950, to March, 1951, and at the rate of Rs. 271-8 with effect from April, 1951. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the provisions of clauses (b) and (o) of section 9(1) of the Act were applicable only after rent had been fixed by the Rent Controller under section 9 and that these provisions had no application to the present case, where there had been increase in municipal taxes, and additions, alterations or improvements made in the promises, prior to such fixation.

(3.) The question before us is whether this interpretation by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge is correct. For a decision of this question it is necessary to turn first to the definition of standard rent in the Act itself. Standard rent is defined in clause (10) of section of the Act in these words Standard rent' in relation to any premises means (a) the standard rent determined in accordance with the provisions of Schedule A, (b) where the rent has been fixed under section 9, the rent so fixed; or at which it would have been fixed if application were made under the said section". Clearly therefore the Legislature contemplated the existence of "standard rent" even where the rent had not been fixed under section 9. If they understood the standard, rent to exist only when the rent had, been fixed under section 9 the definition would not have contained the words, "the standard rent determined in accordance with the provisions of Schedule A" or even less the words, "or which it would have been fixed if application were made under the section". To say there exists no standard rent of the premises unless it had been fixed under section 9 is to ignore these words of the definition clause on standard rent in the Act.