HARKISHAN LAL Vs. BANSI LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of an application by the landlord for the fixation of standard rent under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The trial court fixed the Standard rent taking into consideration the probable cost of construction of the building, but on appeal by the tenant the application was dismissed on the ground that the Rent Control Act did not apply to these premises which were to be treated as the property of Central Government. The landlord has moved this court on the revision side.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that the property in dispute was built by a Muslim in 1947 and was later allotted to a number of persons who are the tenants respondents before me. The property was, in due course, put up to sale and, the petitioner made the highest bid for it. On 29th March, 1956 he was informed that his bid was accepted and that he would be treated as the owner of the property and a Sale certificate would, in due course, issue in his favour. A few days later on 10th April, 1956 the occupiers were informed by the Custodian's Department that rent for the premises should henceforth be paid to the petitioner. Rent was, in fact, from that date paid to the petitioner and it was then that the petitioner made the present application for the fixation of standard rent. The application was decided by the trial court on 17th August, 1957 and the appeal was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, on 23rd May, 1958. Till then no sale certificate had been issued in favour of the petitioner, but a Sale Certificate was issued on 4th June, 1959, i.e. after the present petition was filed in this court.

(3.) WITH regard to the second ground the learned Additional District Judge was clearly in error. The building in respect of which the application was made is one consolidated building. It was constructed at the same time and different portions of it are in occupation of a number of persons. While computing standard rent on the basis of the cost of construction, it is much more advantageous to the tenants that the building should be evaluated as a whole rather than that each portion of it should be considered in insolation, because it is clear that the cost of constructing a room or a portion of a building by itself would be far in excess of its cost if it were to form part of a larger building, and apart from this consideration, in view of the fact that the building is one, although different portions of it are in occupation of different individuals, the best way to fix standard rent is to evaluate the property as a whole and then to apportion the cost with regard to the various portions in occupation of the different individuals and on the basis of this apportionment to fix standard rent. It cannot, therefore, be said that the application was bad, for misjoinder of parties.