S G P SINGH Vs. PROBODH KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Rules arise out of the same proceedings taken before the Rent Controller at the instance of a subtenant for fixing standard rent with regard to certain premises against his own landlord, the tenant under the superior landlord. These two persons will be called tenant and landlord henceforth. The Rent Controller fixed the rent of the premises which is called premises No. 6 at Rs. 155 (one hundred and fifty-five) per month including the occupier's share of the taxes as the standard rent. The landlord made an application for revision before the President of the Tribunal. The President framed several issues in his Court and he has fixed the standard rent at Rs. 230 (two hundred and thirty) per month inclusive of taxes.

(2.) The landlord has obtained a Rule against the decision of the President; it is numbered 1020. The tenant has also obtained a Rule against the same decision which is Revision Case No. 818. It will be convenient to dispose of the Rule obtained by the landlord first. The arguments addressed on his behalf by his learned Advocate are three fold. The first is that the subject-matter of these proceedings cannot be called premises within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the Rent Act and, therefore, standard rent could not be fixed for it. The contention is that the premises referred to does not consist of a building but several buildings. This argument is based upon the fact that on the western portion of the land leased to the tenant an old structure was pulled down to a certain extent and new structures were built in its piace. This was done before the lease was given to the tenant. Both the Courts below rejected this argument. The learned President says with regard to one of the blocks that sonde old doors andjwindows have been re-placed, a small verandah has been constructed and some other changes have been made. And he further says "that the building on the west of the courtyard was constructed on the site of an old structure. The evidence is that the western block has lower rooms than the main building and is used ordinarily as servants quarters and kitchen." His finding is that the premises constitutes one building and the fact that it consists of different blocks does not take it out of the definition of premises in the Rent Act. With this conclusion 1 entirely agree. It cannot be said because a house consists of different blocks, consisting of servants quarters, and offices, garage and the main building, that it is not premises within the meaning of the Act.

(3.) The second contention of the learned Advocate for the landlord is that the Rent Act does not apply to the premises in question as it was in the course of erection at the time of the commencement of the Rent Act as provided by Section 15 of the Act. This, as the learned President has observed, is a pure question of fact and he has come to the conclusion upon the evidence that the premises in question was not either erected after the commencement of the Act, nor was it in the course of erection at the commencement of the Act. We cannot interfere with this finding in revision and the decision of the President of the Tribunal must be accepted.