HURSUK DAS-THAKUR DAS Vs. GOURI CHARAN LAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was granted calling upon the Rent Controller to show cause why a certain order of the 22 September, 1924, dismissing the petitioners application for standardization of rent in respect of Premises No. 26, Khangrapatty Road, should not be set aside and the Rent Controller directed to deal with the application on its merits. The petitioners took a lease for 10 years of Premises Nos. 23, 23-1, 24, 25 and 26, Khangrapatty Street at a rental of Rs. 325 a month. The petitioners let out four of these premises in November 1918 at a rental of Rs. 266 and used Premises No. 26 for residential purposes. On the expiry of the lease on the 1st of February 1924, the landlord who is the opposite party before us took possession of premises Nos. 23, 23-1, 24 and 25, Khangrapatty Street and demanded rent at Rs. 250 a month for Premises No. 26. The petitioners thereupon applied before the Rent Controller for fixing of standard rent for Premises No. 26. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the 22 September, last holding that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the whole of the premises were let out on the 1 of November 1918 at a rent exceeding Rs. 250 a month and that by virtue of the last amending Rent Act premises, the rent of which exceeded Rs. 250 a month on the 1 of November 1918, were excluded from the further operation of the Calcutta Rent Act. We think that this view is incorrect. It may for the purpose of fixing of standard rent, be, necessary for him to decide what portion of the rent of premises in excess of Rs. 250 a month was to be allocated in respect of Premises No. 26. But even so we do not think that the last amending Calcutta Rent Act precludes him from making any such enquiry if it is necessary for the determination of a question such as arises on the present petition. Premises No. 26 were let out at a rental of Rs. 250. These would, clearly fall within the provisions of the Calcutta Rent Act as now subsisting and this it seems to us gives the Rent Controller jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

(2.) We accordingly make the Rule absolute and the Rent Controller will deal with the application on its merits.

(3.) We make no order as to costs.