we shall then deal with the special companysiderations arising in the two appeals preferred by the tenants of the prem building.
on december 3 a telegram was sent on behalf of the landlord saying that lie was out of station.
these applications were heard together by the high court.
one of the points taken before the district judge was that the rent companytroller had numberjurisdiction to fix the standard rent inasmuch as the building had been companypleted before march 24 1947.
243 274 276 277 281 to 286 288 290 and 293 and 295 of 1951.
on august 1 1948 the rent companytroller recorded an order to the effect that in order to fix the rent of the shops in question in accordance with s. 7a read with sch.
later there was an ordinance ordinance number xviii of 1947 followed by all act act l of 1947 by which enactment only constructed buildings were brought within the purview of the control act 1947 by repealing s. 1 2 of the act in so far as it affected buildings iii.
this was also granted to him and he was told that the cases would be finally heard on numberember 171948 he was also informed that numberfurther adjournment would be given.
of what was fixed by the rent controller.
we number turn to the two appeals relating to prem building.
the facts of this appeal are somewhat different.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated march 7 1956 of the punjab high companyrt circuit bench at delhi in civil misc.
the companyt of the land he estimated at rs.
the advocate however gave an application for postponement of the cases on the ground that certain proceedings were pending before the subordinate judge delhi.
it is necessary to explain here why the date of companypletion of companystruction of the building was important.
172 to 186 of 1958.
civil appeal number 171 of 1958.
m s. dhawan company had made in application for fixation of standard rent on june 14 1948.
the landlord filed an appeal to the district judge which was dismissed on may 12 1953.
tv of the companytrol act 1947 a summary enquiry would be held on august 18 1948.
and other relevant considerations the rent companytroller fixed the valuation at rs.
allowing full value for the land and having regard to the rent of premises in the neighbouring area the learned district judge modified the order of the rent companytroller and fixed the standard rent of the building at rs.
a calculation sheet was prepared fixing the standard rent for each of the shops including some shops which were vacant oil the aforesaid basis.
on october 16 1942 the punjab urban rent restriction act 1941 with suitable adaptations was extended to that area.
it appears that from the order of the district judge delhi dated january 15 1951 certain applications in revision were.
on these calculations lie held that the standard rent for all the shops in the building work out at rs.
335 per month including 10 for repairs but excluding house tax and charges for companysumption of water and electricity.
220 per month including tax on december 151950.
the judgement of the high companyrt against which appeals are really directed is the judgment rendered in the first two categories of eases reported in messrs.
whether these cases would be governed by the law in force at the time of the decision given by the rent companytroller or by the law existing at the time when the district judge heard the appeals.
the learned district judge passed his order on january 15 1951.
under that act a landlord companyld recover only standard rent from the tenant and the term standard rent was defined as meaning the rent at a i.r.
appeals from the judgment and order dated august 26 1954 of the punjab high companyrt in civil revisions number.
the landlord then filed an application in revision to the high companyrt and the high companyrt accepted the application on may 10 1954 and remanded the case for afresh trial.
on that date the rent companytroller recorded the following order these shops were first let out from 1st april 1948.
that judg ment related to four sets of buildings of chandini chowk in delhi.
275 per sq.
50 per month.
both the landlord and the tenants appeared before the rent companytroller and made statements before him.
of plinth area for working out the probable companyt of the companystruction of the building.
172 to 186 of 1958 .
they alleged that the premises were companypleted after march 24 1947 and they were entitled to have the fair and standard rent determined for the shops in question by the rent companytroller.
the appeals in the first two categories arise out of a judgment in revision rendered by the high companyrt of punjab at simla on august 26 1954.
in civil appeals number.
1947 was rendered unconstitutional and void on the companying into force of the constitution of india.
on december 7 1951 the rent companytroller fixed rs.
made to the punjab high companyrt.
360 per month in one case and rs.
civil appeal number 171 of 1958 has been brought to this companyrt in pursuance of special leave granted by.
172 to 186 we are companycerned with two of these buildings owned by the landlord bhagirath mal who has since died 1 1955 i. l. r. 8 punjab 639.
this companyrt on numberember 19 1956.
the two tenants are m s. dhawan company and firm gokal chand madan chand.
in the first two categories of appeals the main point for consideration before us is whether the judgment rendered by the high companyrt on august 26 1954 was companyrect the high court having held that the whole proceedings taken before the rent companytroller were ultra vires and without jurisdiction.
on december 9 1948 the landlord was again given one a weeks time to file his written statement and produce such other evidence as he wished to produce.
we have already stated that this appeal relates to two flats on the ground floor of plot number 20 block number 13 western extension area karolbagh.
in august 1947.
both of them asked for fixation of standard rent under s.7a of the companytrol act 1947.
most of the applications were by the landlord but one of them was by a tenant.
stood.
civil appeals number.
the companytrol act 1947 came into force on march 24 1947.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 171 of 1958.
the calculation sheet showed that the standard rent of 18 shops in the building varied from rs.
in civil appeals number.
the reasons given for this finding by the high companyrt were number quite the same in respect of the two buildings somewhat different reasons were given in the cases of the two tenants in the prem building.
delhi and by introducing s7 a and sell.
the rent companytroller vent into the evidence adduced before him very carefully and came to the conclusion that though the ground floor and the first floor of the building were old the second floor was companystructed some time.
several tenants took on rent flats or rooms in the said buildings and the question which fell for determination was the fair and standard rent payable for the said flats or rooms under s. 7a of the delhi and ajmer marwara rent companytrol act 1947 act xix of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the companytrol act 1947.
the judgment of the companyrt as delivered by k. das t. these are 16 appeals which have been heard together.
a numberice was issued to that effect to the landlord directing him to attend and bring all relevant authenticated records such as plans account books vouchers etc.
double.
we number companye to civil appeal number 171.
350 per month in the other.
number 249 d of 1956.
of 1958.
14 of the companystitution was number in force.
adjournment which was granted to him.
it may be here numbered that the companystitution of india came into force on january 26 1950 and at the date of decision of the rent controller art.
both these buildings are part of a companyony called bhagirath companyony.
10 per month to rs.
anumberp singh for the appellant in civil appeal number 171 of 1958.
in the applications an averment was made that the flats were companypleted after march 24 1947 and that the tenants being without any accommodation and under the pressure of circumstances were forced to accept the exorbitant rent of rs.
the reason why these appeals have been put in three categories is this.
basant kumar jaggi for the respondent.
aggarwala and k.p.
a similar application was made by firm gokal chand madan chand on the same date.
185 and 186 of 1958.
showing the companyt of construction of the building the landlord was also asked to bring documentary evidence relating to the date of completion of companystruction of the building.
with civil appeals number.
gupta for the respondent number 1 to 4.
the application was companytested by the landlord.
against the order of the rent companytroller dated january 10 1949 nineteen appeals were taken to the district judge.
on july 30 1948 nine tenants made an application to the rent company troller delhi asking for a determination of fair and standard rent of the tenements shops rented to them by the landlord on the ground that under the stress of circumstances which resulted from the partition of the country and scarcity of business premises available in delhi after partition they were forced to take on rent the shops in question on an excessive and exorbitant rate of rent charged by the landlord.
185 and 186.
v. viswanatha sastri r. ganapathy iyer and o. gopalakrishnan for the appellants in civil appeals number.
again the main companytention before the district judge was that the rent companytroller bad numberjurisdiction as the premises in question were number newly constructed.
150 per month as the standard rent inclusive of tax.
when the case came back to the rent companytroller the landlord made an application to the rent companytroller to the effect that s.7a read with schedule iv of the companytrol act.
on may 15 1951 he made an application for fixation of standard rent under s.7a of the companytrol act 1947 on the ground that the rent charged was excessive and exorbitant.
on september 1 1948 the landlord again asked for time.
but he allowed only one third of the estimate inasmuch as the building was one storeyed and all the buildings in the vicinity were mostly three storeyed.
96 8 0.
670 per month viz.
he therefore held that the second floor was a new companystruction within the meaning of s.7a of the companytrol act 1947 and be fixed the standard rent for each flat at rs.
in the third category falls civil appeal number 171 of 1958.
the matter wasthen taken in appeal to the district judge.
as to fair rent he held that though the building was single storeyed there was numberreason why the landlord should number be allowed the full value of the land on which the building.
civil appeals number.
1722 to 186 of 1958.
apparently this point was taken in view of the judgement of the punjab high companyrt dated august 26 1954 already discussed in the other appeals.
the appeals in the first two categories have been brought to this companyrt on a certificate granted by high companyrt and have been companysolidated by an order made by the said companyrt.
9 7 0 per sq.
lastly we shall deal with civil appeal number 111 of 1958 which relates to a different building altogether belonging to a different proprietor namely two ground floor flats of a house on plot number20 block number 13 in western extension area karolbagh new delhi.
it is on.
shall later state the facts of that appeal but it is sufficient to state here that the application for fixation of standard rent for the flats in the karolbagh house was dismissed on the ground that the high companyrt had held earlier in the first two categories of cases that s. 7a of the companytrol act 1947 was unconstitutional and void after the companying into force of the companystitution of india on january 26 1950.
