SUJRAJ KUMARI Vs. D C CHTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by sm. Suraj Kumari are as follows. The petitioner had constructed two houses, Nos. 42 and 43, in the Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, which were let in portions to tenants for residential purposes, there being six tenants in house No. 42 and four in house No. 43. Out of these ten tenants two who were occupying portions of house No. 43 and one who was occupying a portion of house No. 42 applied-under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer-Mer-wara Rent Control act of 1947 for the fixation of the standard rent of the premises occupied by them. Section 7a of the Act provided for fixation of standard rent for buildings classed as newly constructed premises and the Fourth Schedule to the Act prescribed the methods to be adopted by the Kent Controller for this purpose. Acting under these provisions the Rent Controller passed an order on 8-5-1950 in which he fixed the standard rents not only of the portions of the premises occupied by the three tenants who had applied, but also for the remaining seven tenants in the different parts of the two houses.

(2.) UNDER the Act an appeal lay against this order to the District Judge and on 8-6-1950 the owner filed an appeal in that Court in which she challenged the standard rents fixed by the Bent controller as a whole, though she only impleaded as respondents in the appeal the three tenants who had applied for fixation of the standard rents.

(3.) WHEN the appeal came up for hearing the objection was raised by the respondents who had been impleaded that the appeal was bad because the other seven tenants ought also to have been impleaded as their standard rents had also been fixed in the same order and were being attacked in the appeal.