He secured possession of the said rooms under a deed dated May 1, 1949, executed by him and the appellants.
1, therefore, agree with my learned brother Sarkar, J., that the appeal should be allowed, but in the circumstances of the case there should be numberorder for companyts.
On those findings, he set aside the decree of the learned District Judge and restored the order of the Rent Controller.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, N. C. Chatterjee, S. N. Andley and J. B. Dadachanji, for the Appellant.
248 of 1950, against the order of the Rent Controller, Delhi dated the December 14, 1950.
Hence this appeal.
761 of 1951, arising out of the Appellate Order dated October 6, 1951, of the Court of District Judge, Delhi in Misc.
94 per month.
9,600 a year, i.e., Rs.
700 per month.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the April 29, 1953, of the Punjab High Court at Simla in Civil Revision No.
By order dated October 24, 1950, the Rent Controller held that the exemption under s. 2 of the Act related only to residential rooms in a hotel and therefore the Act applied to the premises in question.
SARKAR J. The appellant is the proprietor of an hotel called the Imperial Hotel which is housed in a building on Queensway, New Delhi.
R. N. Kapoor, the respondent named above who is number dead, was the proprietor of a business carried on under the name of Madam Janes.
He got into possession of the said rooms, agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.
R. N. Kapoor then moved the High Court in revision.
The appellant opposed the application, companytending for reasons to be mentioned later, that the Act did number apply and numberstandard rent companyld be fixed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
We are informed that R. N. Kapoor died pending the present appeal and his legal representatives have been duly brought on the record.
On September 26, 1950, R. N. Kapoor made an application under s. 7 1 of the Delhi and Ajmere Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 19 of 1947 , to the Rent Controller, New Delhi, alleging that he was a tenant of the spaces in the cloak rooms under the appellant and asking that standard rent might be fixed in respect of them.
800 and subsequently Rs.
Civil Appeal No.
Under an agreement with the appellant, he came to occupy certain spaces in the Ladies and Gents cloak rooms of the Imperial Hotel paying therefore initially at the rate of Rs.
700, per month.
38 of 1955.
SUBBA RAO J. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of my learned brother, Sarkar, J., and I regret my inability to agree with him.
8,400, i.e., Rs.
On appeal the District Judge, Delhi, came to a companytrary companyclusion he was of the view that the rooms in question were rooms in a hotel within the meaning of s. 2 of the Act and therefore the Act had numberapplication to the present case.
800 per month, but later on, by mutual companysent, the annual payment was reduced to Rs.
On September 26, 1950, the respondent made an application to the Rent Controller, Delhi, alleging that the rent demanded was excessive and therefore a fair rent might be fixed under the Delhi and Ajmer Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 19 of 1947 , hereinafter called If the Act.
The appellants appeared before the Rent Controller and companytended that the Act had numberapplication to the premises in question at they were premises in a hotel exempted under s. 2 of the Act from its operation, and also on the ground that under the aforesaid document the respondent was number a tenant but only a licensee.
On appeal by the appellant,.
Further on a companystruction of the said document, he held that the appellants only permitted the respondent to use the said two rooms in the hotel, and therefore, the transaction between the parties was number a lease but a licence.
The facts material to the question raised are in a narrow companypass.
The respondent, R. N. Kapur, since deceased, was in occupation of two rooms described as ladies and gentlemens cloak rooms, and carried on his business as a hair dresser.
the,District Judge of Delhi If set aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application.
The present appeal was filed in this Court by special leave granted to the appellants on January 18, 1954.
The Rent Controller however rejected the appellants companytention and allowed the application fixing the standard rent at Rs.
The respondent preferred a revision against the said order of the District Judge to the High Court of Punjab at Simla, and Khosla, J., held that the said premises were number rooms in a hotel within the meaning of s. 2 of the Act and that the document executed between the parties created a lease and number a licence.
The appellants, the Associated Hotels of India Ltd., are the proprietors of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi.
