EKIN BOX MOLLAH Vs. DHARAM PAL CHANDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an application of the opposite party, who is the tenant of room in 3, Madan Street, of which the petitioner is the owner, the Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 133-11 per month. On appeal, the learned Judge fixed the rent at Rs. 140 per month. The landlord asks this Court to set aside the order under section 32(4) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950. The room comprised in the tenancy was admittedly constructed in 1946. Consequently, the provisions of section 9(1) (g) of the Act are applicable. It is contended, however, that in coming to his conclusion as to what is the "fair and reasonable rent" within the meaning of section 9(1) (g), the learned Judge acted arbitrarily, and that there was really no basis in law for his decision.

(2.) The Act itself contains no indication as to the standards the Court should apply in deciding what is fair and reasonable rent. A study of the provisions of section 9 makes it clear that while the Legislature considered that for tenancies in buildings which were in existence on the 1st Dec., 1941, the fair and reasonable rent would be the rent at which the tenancy was let on the 1st Dec., 1941, or the rent which would have been reasonably payable for the premises if let on that date, plus certain small additions and for buildings which were constructed after the 31st Dec., 1949, it considered that the fair and reasonable rent would be the rent as ascertained on the basis of a rate not less than four per centum and not more than six per centum of the reasonable cost of construction added to the reasonable price of the land included in the premises and taking into account the prevailing rate of rent in the locality for similar accommodations with similar advantages and amenities, the Legislature left it entirely to the Rent Controller to decide what is fair and reasonable rent for tenancies in building which were not in existence on the 1st Dec., 1941, but came into existence before the 31st Dec., 1949. This cannot, however, mean that the Rent Controller or the Court of Appeal which has to decide the, correctness of his decision, can act arbitrarily in the wide field of discretion the Legislature has left to him. It is necessary that in deciding what is fair and reasonable rent in cases where provisions of section 9(1) (g) apply the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court formulate for their own guidance proper principles to arrive at the correct decision and then apply those principles to the facts of each particular case.

(3.) The one principle the Legislature lays down for all the cases which come within section 9 (1) (g) is that the rent must be fair and reasonable. This certainly means that it must be fair to both the landlord and the tenant and must also satisfy the reason or conscience of the Judge. The first question is what is fair to the landlord? When houses are in short supply it is not reasonable that rents will go up, but it is not fair that full advantage should be taken by the owners thereof of this shortage. At the same time it is not fair that the landlords investing capital in house property should suffer by getting a lesser net return than on investments with similar risks and disadvantages in other fields. What is not fair to the parties cannot satisfy the reason. So, ordinarily the rent that is fair to both parties will be the reasonable rent, but when, as will often be the case, the rent fair to the landlord and the rent fair to the tenant works out differently, the mean between the two figures should obviously be the fair and reasonable rent.