R.K. JAIN Vs. J.C. KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition, arising out of an application for fixation of the fair rent filed on behalf of the tenant.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments in the application of the tenant, he took on rent the demised premises at Rs. 350/- per month somewhere in the year 1962. Since the Rent Act was not applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh whereas the premises in dispute are situated, the landlord filed a regular civil suit for the ejectment of his tenant and the recovery of the damages by way of compensation for use and occupation. The suit was decreed by the Senior Sub Judge on 31st July, 1972. During execution proceedings of the said decree, the parties arrived at a compromise. Exhibit R-1, dated 16th of August 1972, where the tenant was allowed to remain in possession of the premises till 31st July, 1973 and the landlord agreed not to execute the warrant of possession till then. On the part of the tenant, he agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month from 1st of August, 1972, onwards, though the decree was passed at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month by way of damages. Meanwhile, the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was made applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh with effect from 4th of November, 1972, that is before the expiry of the period under the compromise, i.e. 31st July, 1973. Because of the enforcement of the Act, the decree could not be executed after the expiry of the said period and thus the tenant continued to occupy the premises as statutory tenant at the agreed rate of Rs. 750/- per month. The present application for fixation of the fair rent was filed on 4th of March, 1975 by the tenant. In para 5 thereof, it was alleged that he is continuing in possession as a protected tenant under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and that he was paying Rs. 350/- per month which is the agreed rate of rent between the parties, but the landlord has started claiming rent at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month equivalent to damages. It was also alleged that the prevailing rent of the buildings in the locality for similar accommodation is in the range of Rs. 300/- to 400/- per month, and therefore, the fair rent be fixed accordingly. In the written statement, filed on behalf of the landlord, it was urged that the tenant was in occupation of the premises in question at the subsequently agreed rate of rent of Rs. 750/- per month. This rate of rent according to landlord is reasonable and justified and not penal and unfair. In reply to para 5 of the application, it was stated that the parties mutually agreed the rent of Rs. 750 per month and the tenant paid the rent with effect from 1st August, 1972 upto 26th December, 1975, when the written statement was filed. It was denied that the rent after 1st August, 1972, was Rs. 350/- per month as alleged. According to the landlord, the said amount of Rs. 750/- was the mutually agreed rate of rent between the parties after the compromise. In the replication filed on behalf of the tenant, it was denied that the rent of the demised premises was ever agreed to Rs. 750/- per month. However, it has not been denied specifically that he was not paying rent at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month with effect from 1st August, 1972, upto December, 1975.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that after the decree of ejectment was passed against the tenant, the old tenancy had come to an end and he became the statutory tenant with effect from 4th of November, 1972 when the Rent Act was made applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and thus it was by operation of law that Shri J.C. Kapur became the statutory tenant and continued to occupy the premises as such in spite of the compromise between the parties, Exhibit R-1, dated 16th August, 1972. Thus, argued the learned counsel, if the respondent had become tenant by operation of law, then the agreed rent will be Rs. 750/- per month which the rent being paid by him at the time of filing the application on 4th of March, 1975. In support of this contention, he referred to D.B. judgment of this Court in Ram Piari and others v. Jagan Nath, 1981(2) R.C.R. 614 and Avnash Chander and another v. Shri Mulkh Raj Anand and anr., 1983(2) R.C.R. 631. The argument was also raised that the rent of Rs. 350/- which was being paid earlier had come to an end after the tenancy was determined by the decree of the Civil Court, dated 31st July, 1972, and, therefore, the subsequent amount of Rs. 750/- per month which was agreed to be paid by the tenant from 1st August, 1972 vide Exhibit R-1, will be the rent agreed between the parties at the time of filing the application for fixation of fair rent. In this context, he referred to Kailash Chander Jain v. Mool Raj Sondhi, 1982(2) RCR 273.