JUDGEMENT
S.N.ANDLEY, J. -
(1.)The learned Single Judge was of the view that the construction of sub-section (4) of section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, required consideration by a larger Bench as it arises in numerous cases and that is how this matter has come up before us.
(2.)The appellant, who is the landlord, purchased the shop which is in the tenancy of the respondents, on April 24. 1961. The shop bears Municipal No. 520 in Ward No. V at Mehrauli. It was purchased by the appellant from the Ministry of Rehabilitation for Rs. 8,250.00 and a sale certificate was issued in his favour on April 24, 1962. Prior to this date, the rent of the shop which was being paid to the Custodian of Evacuee Property was Rs. 6.00 per month. Shortly after this purchase, the appellant applied to the Rent Controler for fixation of standard rent. By his order dated August 21, 1964, the Additional Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 30.00 per month on the basis of the cost of construction and the value of the land. The respondents appealed and on January 6, 1965, the Rent Control Tribunal found that there was no sufficient evidence to fix the standard rent on the basis of the cost of construction under section 6 of the Act and he directed the Rent Controller to fix the rent under sub-section (4) of section 9 of the Act. This sub-section provides :-
"Where for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises on the principles set forth under section 6, the Controller may fix such rent as would be reasonable having regard to the situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities provided therein and where there are similar or nearly similar premises in the locality, having regard also to the standard rent payable in respect of such premises."
(3.)By his order dated February 25, 1967. the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 7.00 per month. This he did on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties and also his own inspection of the locality in which the tenancy premises are situa.te. This time the appellant went in appeal to the Tribunal but the appeal was dismissed on April 31, 1968, and thereupon, the appellant filed this second appeal in this Court.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.