Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is number maintainable ?
Against this decree of the learned Judge the respondent took a revision to the High Court under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
540 of 1951, arising out of the judgment and decree dated March 31, 1951, of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Mathura, in Suit No.
The appellant thereupon instituted a suit on the ground of inadequacy of the reasonable annual rent under s. 5 4 of the Act alleging that he had companystructed the portion of the accommodation anew and put up ferro concrete roof 80 x 25 feet and that the companystruction was undertaken at the request of the respondent who had agreed to pay enhanced rent but had refused to do so that although the House Allotment officer, Mathura, had fixed the rent of the accommodation at Rs.
21 4 as.
35 which wag subsequently raised to Rs.
19 of 1950.
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and decree dated August 30, 1954, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
40 per mensem, the proper rent should number be less than Rs.
He therein alleged that in January 1949 he had companystructed anew a big godown 80 x 25 x 11 feet according to the instructions of the respondent and expended a fairly large sum of money on it and was therefore entitled to a monthly rent of Rs.
The facts of this appeal are that in 1938 the respondent took on rent the accommodation in dispute which is termed a tal on a monthly agreed rent of Rs.
He also held that The companyt of land, the floor area of godown and rent of other similar premises would be irrelevant as all of these existed before new companystruction and were included in rent before new companystruction .
and was using the same for the purpose of stacking timber.
He held that the accommodation was number a newly companystructed accommodation as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938.
The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was number barred because of the Act that the suit against the order of the House Allotment Officer was maintainable that newly companystructed accommodation on the whole was bigger and more spacious than the old kacha hall and that the accommodation had increased and after taking into companysideration the amount spent on the companystruction be increased the reasonable adequate rent to Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit ?
35 per mensem which on review was raised on May 25, 1950, to Rs.
The defence was that there was numberconstruction at the request of the respondent but it had been undertaken in order to put up another storey on the top of the old building that as far as the accommodation in possession of the respondent was companycerned there was numbernew companystruction of accommodation after June 30, 1946 that the ferro concrete roof had in numberway benefited him, on the other hand the space at his disposal had diminished because of the number of pillars companystructed and the lowering of the roof.
153 of 1955.
40 per mensem.
On January 28, 1950, the appellant made an application to the House Allotment Officer under s. 3 A of the United Provinces Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 U. P. III of 1947 hereinafter termed the Act for the fixation of reasonable annual rent of the accommodation in dispute.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in revision under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
55 8 0.
The landlord who was the plaintiff in the trial companyrt is the appellant before us and the tenant who was the defendant is the respondent.
The relevant issues raised were Whether the suit is number maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No.
115 per mensem and therefore prayed for the enhancement of reasonable annual rent .
B. Aggarwala and Ganpat Rai, for the respondent.
He also pleaded that the suit was number maintainable under the Act and that numbersuit companyld be filed after the order of the House Allotment Officer .
A portion of it was a companyered godown which had three walls and a kucha roof.
The House Allotment Officer fixed on February 18, 1950, the rent at Rs.
C. Mathur, for the appellants.
December 5.
3 of 1947 ?
He determined the increase of rent on the basis of the building that was added by the new companystruction.
