SORABJI RUSTOMJI SUBEDAR Vs. RHPATUCK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed this suit in the Small Causes Court claiming to recover rent of premises let out to the defendant. They were originally let to the defendant in September 1917 for a period of two years at Rs. 55 a month. The defendant paid that rent up to October 1918, and thereafter was willing to pay Rs. 44 a month; which he alleged to be the standard rent. The plaintiff claimed that the basis for the standard rent was Rs. 55, that the premises were not let out at their full and proper value of Rs. 55 a month on January 1, 1916, but at a confessional rent of Rs. 40 to the plaintiff's sister's husband and; therefore, he was entitled to charge the defendant Rs. 60-8-0. The plaintiff also stated that he had spent Rs. 58,000 for extensions and improvements to the premises in 1919, and so he claimed standard rent at Rs. 110 from July 1920, on the basis of the said improvements and extensions. He further claimed that he had to pay Municipal taxes on a higher rateable value, and had paid Rs. 400 to the Municipality for the said excess up to September 30, 1921. The fact that the rateable value was increased was due,according to the plaintiff, to the defendant's sub-letting a portion of the premises at a rent of Rs. 225, after they had been improved.

(2.) On the application of the defendant the suit was transferred to the High Court. The defendant then filed his written statement and counterclaim. The following issues were raised at the hearing before Mr. Justice Pratt:- (1) What is the standard rent of the promises in defendant's occupation ? (2) What is the expenditure incurred by the plaintiff in making improvements or structural alterations, if any, to the premises in defendant's occupation? (3) From what date is the plaintiff entitled to such increase, if any ? (4) Whether the plaintiff agreed to restore defendant to possession within three months or reasonable time of his vacating the premises and whether he committed a broach of that agreement ! (5) If so, to what damages is defendant entitled for such breach ?

(3.) The Judge disallowed issues Nos. 4 and 5, and found that the standard rent was Rs. 53 plus 10 per cent, total Rs. 60-8-0. On the facts proved before him, the Judge was of opinion that Rs. 40 paid by Ferdun or Ferdun's wife, when in occupation of the premises on January 1, 1916, was a concessional rent, and consequently, he was entitled to treat the rent paid under the lease of 1917 as the proper rent for the purposes of the Act.