JAL RUSTOMJI MODI Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a landlord's suit for realizing arrears of rent and for other relief 's. The question turns on the interpretation of several Ss. of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.

(2.) The facts are as follows: The Governor -General of India in Council entered into an agreement in the year 1943 with one R.K. Modi to take on rent the second and third floors of premises No. 146/7 Lower Chitpur Road, Calcutta, at a rental of Rs. 2,225 -8 -0 according to the English calendar besides occupier's share of taxes; The present Plaintiffs are the trustees under a deed of settlement executed by the said -R. K. Modi in January 1946. The rent of the said premises was fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 3,427 -4 -3 per month with effect from December 1, 1948, under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948. An appeal by the Dominion of India against the above order before the Chief Judge of the Calcutta Small Cause Court was dismissed. There is no dispute that the tenancy of the Dominion of India vested in the Union of India in 1950. R.K. Modi and, after his decease, the present Plaintiffs went on collecting rent of the premises at Rs. 3,427 -2 -7 per month along with the occupier's share of taxes, at Rs. 358 per quarter, upto the end of May 1960. No money was paid by the Defendant from and after June 1, 1960. The present suit was filed on March 21, 1961, for realizing Rs. 23,990 -89 P. as rent of the premises for the months of June to. December' 1960, besides the occupier's share of taxes for two quarters totaling Rs. 716. The Plaintiffs also claimed -interest by giving notice under the Interest Act of 1839 at 12 per cent per annum from November 1, 1960. According to the plaint, the Defendant wrongfully asserted, for the first time in October 1960, that it was liable to pay rent at a rate much lower than Rs. 3,427 -27 P. per month from April 1, 1950, and that it had paid by mistake rent in excess of the rent legally payable and was entitled to adjust against the excess payment the rent for period from June 1960 onwards. The plaint goes on to narrate that the Government of India, Dominion of India, and the Defendant had represented to R.K. Modi and to the Plaintiffs that the rent of the demised portion of the premises was payable at the rate of Rs. 3,427 -27 P. per month and the Plaintiffs have incurred expenses and paid income -tax, wealth -tax etc. on the basis that they were legally entitled to rent at the said rate. They also claim to have paid Corporation rates and taxes on the basis of rental for the demised premises at Rs. 3,427 -27 P. per month and, in the premises, they contend that the Defendant is estopped and precluded from alleging that the rent payable was not Rs. 3,427 -27 P. per month.

(3.) The Defendant filed its written statement on June 19, 1961. It is here admitted that in the year 1943 the Governor -General in Council became a tenant of the second and third floors of the premises mentioned above at a rental of Rs. 10 per 100 sq. ft exclusive of all taxes, and on this basis a sum of Rs. 2,225 -50 P: was payable as rent, exclusive of taxes. It was denied that the Defendant became liable to pay rent at Rs. 3,427 -27 P. as alleged. The substantial defence is that under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, the standard rent of the second and third floors of the premises was fixed and /or required to be fixed and/or revised as from April 1, 1950 to November 30, 1951, at the rate of Rs. 2,225 -50 P. per month plus an increase of 10 per cent totaling Rs. 2,448 -05 P. per month and was enhanced from December 1, 1951, to Rs. 2,815 -26 P. per month calculated at Rs. 2,448 -05 P. plus a further increase of 15 per cent. It is pleaded in para. 9 of the written statement that by mistake it paid rent to the owners of the premises at Rs. 3,427 -27 P. per month up to the end of May 1960 and that its liability was to pay rent at the lower rates just mentioned. This mistake is said to have been discovered for the first time on or about June 5, 1960. In the premises a sum of Rs. 82,009 -42 P. had been paid in excess by the Defendant as per particulars set out in the Schedule to the written statement. According to the Defendant it has no liability to pay rent until the said amount is adjusted and/or appropriated and/or refunded.