S.K. CHATTERJEE AND ANR. Vs. RESIDENCE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Karnani Trust Estate is the owner of premises No. 209, Lower Circular Road, which consist of 205 flats of various types. On these 205 flats, the Residence Ltd. is the tenant of the first degree under the Karnani Trust Estate in respect of 145 flats. The petitioners S.K. Chatterji and R.W. Dease in Civil Revision Cases Nos. 1711 and 1712 of 1952, respectively are tenants of the second degree in respect of two flats under the Residence Ltd. In 1950, the Residence Ltd. filed an application for fixing the standard rent payable by it to the Karnani Trust Estate for the 145 flats held by it. This gave rise to Rent Control Case No. 1576B of 1950. The learned Rent Controller fixed the standard rent against which the owners, Karnani Trust Estate, filed an appeal which was Rent Control Appeal No. 840 of 1950. In fixing the standard rent payable by the Residence Ltd., the appellate court divided the different flats into seven types and fixed the standard rent as the sum total of rents of each type of flat. In these two Rules we are concerned with what has been described as flats of the "V 3 type" and "single type" because it is admitted that S. K. Chatterji is a sub-tenant of a flat of "V 3 type" and R.W. Dease is a sub-tenant in respect of a flat of the "single type". In Rent Control Appeal No. 840 of 1950 the standard rent payable by the Residence Ltd. to the owner was fixed at Rs. 201-13-2 pies and Rs. 92-14-7 pies respectively in respect of each flat of the "V 3 type" and "single type". The proceedings out of which the present Rules arise were started by the petitioners. S.K. Chatterji and R.W. Dease for fixing the standard rent payable by them to the Residence Ltd. In fixing the standard rent in these two cases, both the courts below have taken the rent payable by the Residence Ltd., to the owner as the basic rent and have allowed an increment of 61/4 per cent, under paragraph 4 of Schedule A. To the rent thus arrived at, the appellate court has added the entire charge for sweeper's services and fan hire at the rate of Rs. 10 for each fan per month. It may be mentioned that in respect of these two items the Rent Controller allowed only half the charge for sweeper's services on the ground that the sweepers also cleansed the common corridor and the staircase and as such they also rendered personal services to the Residence Ltd. The learned Rent Controller also totally disallowed the fan hire upon the view that no charge had been fixed for the supply of fans by the owner as against the Residence Ltd. As a result of the appellate judgment, the standard rents of S.K. Chatterji and R.W. Dease have been fixed respectively at Rs. 263-3 and Rs. 114-10-6 pies as against the contractual rents of Rs. 375 and Rs. 180. It is against this judgment that the petitioners have obtained the present Rules.

(2.) Mr. Gupta, appearing in support of the Rules, argued that the judgment of the appellate court in Rent Control Appeal No. 840 of 1950 not being inter partes was not admissible in evidence in these cases and for this proposition he relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gourishankar Shaw Vs. Anil Chandra Majumdar, 57 C.W.N. 431). This decision, however, does not support the broad proposition which has been formulated before us by Mr. Gupta. In the judgment of Chakravartti, C.3., at page 433. the following passage occurs: "All that the judgments can be taken legally to prove is that a particular amount had been fixed as the rent for a particular premises and nothing more." Sinha. J., makes the following observation at page 434 : "The judgments may be judgments in rem' to prove that the premises had been standardised at a particular rent, but the facts as to the measurements or the amenities, etc., are not evidence...." In the present case, the judgment in Rent Control Appeal No. 840 of 1950 was admitted into evidence only for the purpose of proving that the rents of the 145 flats held by the Residence Ltd, were standardised at particular rates by the appropriate authorities. The decision cited by Mr. Gupta supports the view that the judgment was admissible for this purpose. We accordingly overrule the first point raised by Mr. Gupta in support of these Rules But before we dispose of this point, we have to observe that if we give effect to this contention of Mr. Gupta, the result will be that not only the judgment in Rent Control Appeal No. 840 of 1050 will go out of evidence but also all other judgments which were filed by the petitioners themselves before the Rent Controller to prove their case will also be ruled out on the same ground with the result that there would be nothing before the Court to justify a variation of the contractual rents and the applications filed by the petitioners would have to be dismissed. As however we do not accept the argument) which has been put forward by Mr. Gupta as to the admissibility of this judgment, we need not consider this point any further.

(3.) Mr. Gupta argued in the second place that the courts below were not justified in allowing an increment of 61/4 percent, upon the standard rent and placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Hindu Eslate Limited Vs. Grant James Ltd., 56 C.W.N. 566). In this case Chakravartti, C.J., made the following observation at page 571 : "It is altogether erroneous to suppose paragraph 4 of Schedule A prescribes a method of assessment for cases where the applicant for the standardisation of rent is a sub-tenant. That paragraph only prescribes a maximum limit which the standard rent fixed for the sub-tenant must not exceed. It comes into operation only after the standard rent has been fixed by the application of principles to be found in other provisions of the Act and it is to be applied by way of a check in order to see that the standard rent, otherwise determined, does not go beyond that maximum prescribed by the paragraph.