MANICK LAL ROY Vs. BIRENDRA KUMAR SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Rules arise out of applications for standardisation of rent of premises No. 5|3, Ramkrishna Lane, which were constructed after the 1st of Dec., 1941, and before the 31st of Dec., 1949. The Courts below rightly applied the provisions of section 9(1) (g) of the Rent Control Act of 1950. As the result of the applications however the trial Court thought Rs. 250 should be the fair and reasonable rent while the Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the rent should be Rs. 330. To enable the Court to decide what should be the fair and reasonable rent, evidence was adduced as regards rent for several tenancies. The learned Rent Controller took into consideration the rents of premises which in his opinion gave more or less similar accommodation, even though they were not constructed before the 1st of Dec., 1941. The learned Court of appeal thought that this could not be done and that the rents for houses constructed before the 1st of Dec., 1941, even though those houses gave similar accommodation and similar amenities could not be taken into consideration.

(2.) In our judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in this view. It was decided by this Court in Moulavi Ekin Box Molla Vs. Sri Dharampal Chadha, (Civil Case No. 1409 of 1953), a decision which has not yet been reported, that in a proceeding to decide what is fair and reasonable rent the Court should ask for (1) evidence about the capital actually invested or failing that the capital that may reasonably be estimated to have been invested and about what would be the rate of return for investments with similar risks and advantages in the free-market, (2) evidence about the rate of rent for similar accommodation at a time when the tenant was not in need of getting accommodation at any price and (3) failing evidence as in (2) the Court should ask for evidence about the rate of rent for similar accommodation in the circumstances prevailing at the time of the application for fixation of rent. Whether or not the premises in which similar accommodation was available had been constructed before or after 1941 cannot affect this question. At the same time, we think it right to mention that where direct evidence about the rent for exactly similar accommodation is not available it may be necessary and profitable for the Court to look into evidence of accommodation which is more or less similar on the question of amenities and if there is some difference in amenities, to make necessary addition, or reduction to the rent actually payable for such accommodation in deciding what the reasonable rent would be for the accommodation for the premises in question.

(3.) In our judgment, the cases have not been properly dealt with in the Courts below. We accordingly set aside the orders passed by the Courts below and order that the applications of the landlord and the tenant for standardisation of rent be sent back to the Rent Controller for disposal in accordance with law in the light of the directions mentioned above. Both sides should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence on the question. There will be no order as to costs.