HAZI MAHAMMAD EKRAMAL HAQUE Vs. PROVINCE OF BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against a decision of the arbitrator in a proceeding in connection with the assessment of compensation for a building requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, Section 19, read with Defence of India Rules 81 (2) (bb) and Section 75A of the Rules.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that premises No. 9 Chittaranjan Avenue used to be occupied by the Central Government under a lease which expired on 29th July 1943. The lease had been granted on 28th July 1940, the rent reserved being Rs. 1950 monthly. On the expiry of the lease, the owner refused to renew the tenancy. Therefore on 30th July 1943, a requisition order was served requisitioning the building for the Controller of the Army Factory Accounts. The Collector offered Rs. 2200 as the monthly rent inclusive of the Corporation rates. This was refused by 'the landlord who claimed Rs. 3988 as the monthly rent inclusive of rates. He asked for a reference to arbitrator. The arbitrator came to the conclusion that as the House Rent Control Order had come into force from 26th June 1943, the landlord if he had let out the house on 30th July 1948, would not have been entitled to any increase in rent because of the limitations contained in Section 8 of that Order and he was not entitled to claim any increased rent. Under the Rent Control Order, then in force, only an increase of rent by ten per cent. could have been claimed if the creation of the tenancy was prior to 1st December 1941 which it was in the present case, but the right to increase rent was limited by Section 8 of the Order, and in the present case, in view of Section 8 no in -crease would have been possible in the rent and so the arbitrator came to the conclusion that Rs. 1960 should be the fair rent, and as the Collector had offered much more than that, he did not disturb what the Collector had done. The landlord has come up on appeal.

(3.) THE requisitioning authority is not a tenant in law, and therefore whatever changes are introduced in the rent control legislation cannot beneficially affect the claimant. It is clear, and is not disputed, that in the present case the appellant wrote to the Collector after the West Bengal Act of 1948 came into force that the amount paid by the Government ought to be increased by forty per cent. because such was the increment allowed by that Act. The Collector rightly contended that the Government was not a tenant, and so the claim did not come within the West Bengal Act of 1948 and the amount awarded by the arbitrator would not be increased by any percentage.