O.P. KATHPALIA Vs. LAKHMIR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition of revision under Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (XXXVIII of 1952) preferred on behalf of the tenant. The brief facts of this case are that the premises in question situate at No. 1, Hailey Road New Delhi, were taken on rent from one E.B. Brook by the Petitioner, O.P. Kathpalia. Brook was tenant of the Respondent landlord. Brook had sublet a portion of the property in his occupation to the present Petitioner on 1st of September, 1954. Brook vacated the premises in his occupation and called upon the Petitioner to vacate his portion. This was on 30th of April, 1955. The Petitioner, however, did not do so. The Petitioner on 22nd of June, 1955 came to a direct arrangement with the landlord agreeing to become his tenant from 1st of May, 1955, at a monthly rent of Rs. 272/8/ -. By his latter, Exhibits. P. 2, dated the 26th of June, 1955 addressed to the landlord, the Petitioner said that he had cleared his accounts with Mr. Brook, up till the 30th of April, 1955 and had enclosed a cheque for Rs. 539/ - as the rent for the months of May and June, 1955 and promised to pay the rent in future every month regularly. On 19th of October, 1955, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (XXXVIII of 1952) for fixation of standard rent. Section 11 is in the following words:

(2.) WHAT is the standard rent of the premises under Section 8 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952? We are concerned only with the first issue. It was argued by Mr. Radhe Lal Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the period of limitation commenced on 1st of May, 1956 when Petitioner became for the first time the tenant of Shri Lakhmir Singh landlord and on the expiration of the tenancy which had previously existed between Brook and the Petitioner. The application had been made admittedly within 6 months from 1st of May, 1956. The contention of the Respondent -landlord, however, is that the limitation started running after the Petitioner's entry on the premises in 1954, when he had become tenant of Brook. According to the Respondent -landlord the terminus -a -quo dates when the tenant for the first time enters on the particular premises.

(3.) The question before me relates to the construction of the words of the section and to legislative intent. To my mind the more reasonable construction is the one which has been contended on behalf of the landlord. What is matter of moment is the quantum of standard rent of the premises and not the party, to whom it is payable or from whom it is chargeable. Whenever a tenant enters on the premises he is given by the law a right to get his rent, which he may be actually paying reduced, to the standard rent, provided he makes such an application within the period allowed. Every time there is change of ownership a right to get the standard rent fixed does not occur and recur. If a tenant feels satisfied with the contractual rent and allows the period of limitation to expire, he is deemed to be satisfied with what he is paying and the amount cannot be reduced at his instance. There seems to be no reason why the law should have permitted such a tenant another period of limitation on the change of the landlord. The relevant words are "within 6 months from the date on which it is so let". In order to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the tenant the words ought to read "within 6 months from the date on which it is so let by the Respondent -landlord". There is no reference whatsoever to the landlord but only to the premises. The statute does not contemplate periodic resuscitation of the period of limitation with every change in the landlord. The learned Counsel for the landlord drew my attention to Mst. Bhagwati v. Sant Lal : A.I.R. 1946 All. 360. There the word contained in Article 181 "When the right to apply accrues" were being construed and it was held that they meant "when the right to apply first accrues". Hari Mohan Dalal and Anr. v. Parameshwar Shau and Ors. : A.I.R. 1928 Cal. 646, is to the same effect. It has also to be remembered that the law of limitation is qua the remedy sought and not qua the party sued. A tenant can thus claim the right to apply for fixation of standard rent within six months of his entry on the premises as tenant regardless of change in the landlords.