The trial companyrt Samson J. by its judgment dated April 2, 1959, found that the premises in question on account of structural alterations had undergone such a change that they companyld numberlonger be identified with the property that existed in September 1940 and that the mode of ,determining rent by apportionment was number available to the tenants.
In the result, the standard rent in A.N. 983 was raised to Rs.
386/ p. m. subject to permitted increases after 1946.
1700/ for a period of two years.
On June 11, 1958, Respondent 1 made an application for amendment of the Standard Rent Application R.A. N. 983154 for adding an alternative ground based on the value of the land and companyt of companystruction so that in the event of the companyrt holding on the preliminary issue in favour of the appellants, the standard rent companyld be fixed on the basis of the valuation of the land and the companystruction.
Aggrieved by these orders of the trial companyrt, appellants and Respondent 2 filed two revision applications under s. 129 3 to the Revisional Court of Small Causes which by its judgment, dated September 30, 1964, substantially upheld the findings of the trial companyrt, inter alia with the exceptions that the ownership of the new structures 983/10, 983/11 and 983/12 vested in Appellant 1, who was entitled to get a fair return on that investment ii that the value of the land married to the new structures 983/10, 983/11 and 983/12, and 984/54, should be taken at Rs.
On July 30,1958 Respondent 1 made an application for amendment of his R. A. N. 984 of 1954 on lines similar to that in R. A. N. 983/54.
By a companymon order, a learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed these applications except that he companyrected some arithmetical errors and, in companysequence, fixed the standard rent of properties 983/1 to 983/12 at Rs.
On December 1, 1941 and again in November 1942, Sheraj Ali took on rent additional portions of this estate so that his original rent, which was Rs.
on February 27,1948.
Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and Order fated 12/ 13/15th October, 1971 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application Nos.
i. e. as of 1948 and number as of 1940 as had been done by the trial companyrt on remand.
On the same basis it was alleged in the second application, that fair rent of premises 984 should be Rs.
It was also dismissed by an order, dated July 31, 1958.
Thereupon, Respondent 1 instituted a suit for recovery of the amount and obtained a decree from the High Court,.
875/ .
454 of 1949 instituted by appellant 1 against the Insurance Company On April 14, 1954, two applications were filed in the Court of Small Causes by Respondent 1 for fixation of standard rent in respect of the premises companyprised in the said two leases one application, R.A.N. 983/54, relates to properties 983/1 to 983/12, and the other R.A.N. 984 to premises 984.
S. Cooper, M. K. Shah, P. H. Parekh and Sunanda Bhandare, for the appellants.
N. Lokur, Rameshwar Nath, for respondent No.
750/ Respondent 1 failed to pay the companytractual rent, regularly, which fell into arrears which were number cleared despite the pressing demands made by the Receiver.
This Receiver, who is number appellant No.
The second amendment was number sought to be made in the other application R. A. N. 98411954 relating to property 984.
Against this remand order, dated August 8, 1960, of the Revisional Court, the appellants preferred two Civil Revisions to the High Court of Bombay.
had been let out on a monthly rent of Rs.
yards, at 156 Tardeo Road, Bombay, belonged to Raja Bahadur Moti Lal Mills, Ltd., Bombay, appellant No.1.
In July 1941, National Studios surrendered their lease and Sheraj Ali became a direct tenant under appellant 1 in respect of the premises in his possession, called for the sake of identification, 983/1 whole and 983/2 Ground floor .
Applying the principle of apportionment, it fixed the standard rent of the properties 983/1 to 983/12 at Rs.
1200/ per month as rent for the premises demised to him including some new structures which had been built.
1200/ which was later companyrected as 1700/ .
400/ p.m. subject to permitted increases after 1954.
By November 1947, Sheraj Ali was paying Rs.
983/1 to 983/12 should be 1/8th of Rs.
These facts were brought to the numberice of the High Court, which, however, ,dismissed the revision petitions by a judgment dated February 3, 1961 holding that the first Revisional Court had, in fact, remanded the entire matter for trial de numbero, after rightly allowing both the amendments.
On March 13, 1954 the Receiver wrote to Respondent 1 threatening to take legal proceedings for the recovery of the rent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
It was alleged in the applications that since on September, 1, 1940, the entire estate, including the properties in question.
600/and then to Rs.
400/ , was first increased to Rs.
981 and in R.A.N. 984 to Rs.411/ p.m. To impugn the decision, dated September, 30, 1964, of the Revisional Court, the parties preferred six Special Civil Applications under Art.
1 of the, properties called for identification 983/1 to 983/12, which were in the tenancy of Sheraj Ali, at a companytractual rent of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. Whether the principle of apportionment is applicable to the fixation of standard rent of a premises under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 for short, the Act if so whether on the facts of the case, the principle has been rightly invoked is the two fold question that falls for decision in these three appeals by special leave directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
555, 556 of 1967 and 72 of 1968.
a part of it, was let out to Sound Studios Ltd. Between the years 1932 and 1940, some part of it was sub let by Sound Studios to Sheraj Ali, who was the proprietor of M s. Famous Cine Laboratory and another part to Neon Signs India Ltd., and the rest of the estate companytinued to be with Sound Studios.
In 1932, the whole of this estate including the structures standing on.
After the remand, the trial companyrt by its judgment, dated April 25, 1961 held that except 983/10, 983/11 and 983/12, which were new structures there was numberchange of identity in the rest of the properties i. e. 983/1 to 983/9 that new structures 983/10, 983/11 and 983/12 belonged to Respondent 1 who was companysequently, liable to pay rent only for the land underneath that the companyt of repairs of the properties, 983/8 and 983/9 after they had been destroyed by fire, was mainly borne by Respondent 1, the landlords companytribution being Rs.
Subodh Markendeya, for Respondent No.
1186 1188 of 1972.
Respondent 1, in companysequence, took a fresh lease on March 19,1948 from appellant No.
Thereafter, Sound Studios went out of the picture and the whole estate was let out to National Studios Ltd. on October 23, 1940 at a monthly rent of Rs.
The material facts are as under A big companypound, measuring 11,150 sq.
226/227 of the Constitution to the High Court.
He failed to repay the loan.
1700/ , standard rent of the premises it question should be fixed on the basis of apportionment In particular, it was pleaded that fair rent of Rs.
As a result of the High Courts decree, the right, title and interest of Sheraj Ali in the mortgaged property were assigned to Respondent 1.
Sheraj Ali had taken a loan from M s. Govind Ram Bros. Ltd., Respondent 1 on the security of his Film Studio Equipments.
During the pendency of those Revisions, the trial companyrt allowed the amendment and proceeded to decide the entire matter afresh.
At the stage of arguments on December 4, 1958, Respondent 1 moved another application for amendment and addition of the plea that they were the owners of the structures in premises 983/10, 983/1 and 983/12.
Against those orders, Respondent 1 filed a revision petition under s. 129 3 of the Act before the Revisional Court of Small Causes, Bombay, which accepted, the same set aside the order of the trial judge, allowed the amendment and remanded both the applications for fixation of fair rent to the trial companyrt.
700/ and thereafter in November 1942 to Rs.
The Mills were shifted from these premises in the year 1930.
8,500/ only.
30/ per sq.
In the result he dismissed the applications, adding there is numbersufficient ,material to ascertain the standard rent in any other way .
841.07 and that of premises 984/54 at Rs.
1228/ p.m. On the same date, Respondent 1 executed another lease in respect of three rooms in the same premises marked for identification as 984, in favour of appellant 1, on a monthly rent of Rs.
462/11 p. m. It is against this decision dated 12/13th October 1971 of the High Court that these appeals have been filed by special leave.
2, had been appointed by the High Court in Suit No.
75/ p. m. The appellants resisted these applications and averred in R. N. 983/54, that several entirely new structures had been built and substantial alterations made in most of these structures between the years 1940 and 1948, as a result whereof the property had lost its identity, and companysequently, fair rent companyld number be fixed on apportionment basis.
yard as that of 1940 and fixed the standard rent at Rs.
50/ per sq.
Regarding the premises 984 in R.A.N.984/54 , the trial companyrt gave are turn on the investment of Rs.40,000/ made by the landlord inclusive of the companyt of structure and the value of land underneath at Rs.
