JATIYA ESTATE LTD. Vs. MESSRS. VITHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, given in its revisional jurisdiction under section 32 (4) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, by which an appellate order of a Judge of the Small Cause Court, reversing an order of the Additional Rent Controller, was set aside and the order of the Additional Rent Controller restored.

(2.) The petitioner before us is a private limited company and is the owner of premises Nos. 21 and 22 Rupchand Roy Street. Calcutta. In 1948, the respondent firm obtained a monthly tenancy of a shop-room on the ground floor of premises No. 22 Rupchand Roy Street and a godown on the ground-floor of premises No. 21 Rupchand Roy Street, the two together forming the subject-matter of the tenancy The contractual rent was Rs. 3501- per month. In Sept., 1953, the respondent firm made an application before the Additional Rent Controller, Calcutta, for standardisation of the rent. The Additional Rent Controller held that the premises had been in existence in Dec., 1941, but were not let out and, therefore, section 9 (1) (e) of the Rent Control Act would apply. Under that section, the Rent Controller would have to determine what rent would have been reasonably payable for the premises, if they had been let out on the 1st of Dec., 1941, because such rent would be the basic rent for the purposes of standardisation. In order to determine the rent which would have been reasonably payable, the Rent Controller took into account the rent paid on account of a shop-room situated at premises No. 3A Rupchand Roy Street which stood almost opposite to the premises in the present case. The rent paid for the shop-room in premises No 3A Rupchand Roy Street on the prescribed date, that is the 1st of Dec., 1941, was Rs. 481- per month. The Rent Controller made an addition of 50 per cent to that amount in the view that the rooms in question before him were of a somewhat superior quality, and on applying the rate so ascertained to the floor-space of the present tenancy and making a further addition on account of a larger road frontage, he determined the basic rent at Rs. 1251- per month. Accordingly, he fixed the standard rent at Rs. 143-12-0.

(3.) The petitioner before us appealed to the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. The appeal was heard by the learned Fourth Judge who held, in agreement with the Additional Rent Controller, that the provisions of section 9 (1) (e) of the Act were applicable, but he held, at the same time, that the premises which were the subject-matter of the tenancy before him were altogether dissimilar to the shop-room at 3A Rupchand Roy Street, which had been taken as a comparable unit. Since, besides that shop-room at No. 3A Rupchand Roy Street, the respondent firm had not referred to the rent borne by any other comparable premises, the learned Judge held that the respondent firm's case for a reduction of the contractual rent had not been proved and accordingly he dismissed its application.