If so, is the defendant entitled to set off and or adjust the payment made in excess against the plaintiffs claim for rent?
Consequently a sum of Rs.
The respondents are the trustees under a deed of settlement executed by R. K. Modi who had originally leased out the premises.
In addition a sum of Rs.
Both the landlord and the tenant stood to lose the benefit of the Act at least in part if they did number take stock of their position as soon as the Act came into force and applied in accordance with its provisions for the necessary relief.
2225.50np per month apart from the occupiers share of taxes.
23990.89 np as arrears of rent of the aforesaid premises for the period July 1, 1960 to December 31, 1960 at therate of Rs.
from November 1, 1960 a numberice having been given under the Interest Act of 1839.The substantial defence of the appellant was that under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Temporary Provisions Act 1950 hereinafter called the Act the standard rent came to the following amounts for the periods mentioned below April 1, 1950 to October 30, 1951 Rs.
This was discovered for the first time in June, 1960.
716.00 was claimed on account of occupiers share of taxes as also the interest at the rate of 12 pc.
46/7, Lower Chitpur Road, Calcutta, were taken on rent by the Government, the agreement of tenancy having been entered into by the then Governor General in Council The rate at which the rent was payable was Rs.
3427 4 3 per month with effect from December 1, 1948.
The appellant was found entitled to ask for adjustment or set off in respect of the amount that had been so paid.
It was held by the trial Judge that from April 1, 1950 the appellant was number liable to pay more than Rs.
In the present case the appellant did number make any application under Section 7 and therefore numberquestion of adjustment or refund arose.
On March 21, 1961 the respondents filed a suit for recovery of Rs.
3427.27 per month.
82,009.42np had been paid in excess to the respondents.
If a tenant was under the impression that the rate at which he was paying rent was higher than what would be the standard rent under the Act he companyld at once apply for fixation of standard rent.
2815.26 p. m. It was alleged that by mistake the appellant had companytinued to pay to the respondents the standard rent fixed under the Act of 1948 at the rate of Rupees 3427.27 np per month upto the end of May, 1960.
The appeal Court referred to Sections 7 to 11 and 17 of the Act of 1950 and expressed the view that the legislature intended to define and alter, if necessary, the rights of the landlords and tenants immediately after the Act came into force.
82,009.42.He,therefore, held that the excess payment had been made through mistake.
2815.26 per month as rent and, therefore,the total excess payment made came to Rs.
On the Rent Controller being moved for fixation of the standard rent it was fixed at Rs.
2448.05 p. m. December 1, 1951 onwards Rs.
The tenant companytinued to pay rent at the above rate along with the occupiers share of taxes upto the end of May, 1960 but stopped paying any rent after June, 1960.
Did the defendant pay rent at the rate of Rs.
Amongst the issues framed by the trial Court the following two issues alone need be reproduced 4 a .
N. Grover, J. This is an appeal against a judgment of a Division bench of the Calcutta High Court reversing in appeal a decision of the trial Judge by whom the suit had been dismissed.
In 1943 the 2nd and 3rd floor of premises No.
The tenancy in favour of the Governor General in Council devolved upon the Union of India which is the appellant before us.
There was thus numberliability to pay the rent claimed until the said excess pay ment had been adjusted or appropriated.
3427.27 np per month upto the end of May, 1960 by mistake?
