JUDGEMENT
V.B.RAJU -
(1.)Holding that the petitioner in this revision application who was admittedly a tenant of the opponent had sub-let a portion of the premises let to him and was charging rent from the sub-tenant which was in excess of the standard rent and permitted increases In respect of the part the Courts below have decreed the suit for ejectment filed by the opponent against the present petitioner. Under sec. 13(1)(j) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 which will here- inafter be referred to as the Act a landlord is entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the rent charged by the tenant for the premises or any part thereof which are sublet before the commencement of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance 1959 is in excess of the standard rent and permitted increases in respect of such premises or part or that the tenant has received any fine premium other like sum or consideration in respect of such premises or part. In this connection it is also necessary to refer to sub-section (4) of section 13 of the Act which reads as follows :-
For the purposes of clause (j) of sub-section (1) the standard rent or petmitted increases in respect of the part sub-let shall be the amounts bearing such proportion to the standard rent or permitted increases in respect of the premises as may be reasonable having regard to the extent of the part sub-let and other relevant considerations.
(2.)Both the Courts below have held that the conditions of clause(j) of sub- section (1) of sec. 13 and sub-section (4) of sec. 13 have been satisfied and have decreed the opponents suit for eviction of the present petitioner.
(3.)In revision it is contended that the appellate Court which confirmed the order of the trial Court has committed an illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction. It is contended that unless the standard rent of the whole house is fixed before the proceedings for eviction clause (j) of sub- section (1) of sec. 13 cannot apply. Under clause (j) if the tenant has sub-let a portion of the premises given to him on lease and recovers rent from the sub-tenant in excess of standard rent and permitted increases in respect of such premises or any part then he is liable to be ejected. No doubt the Court has to decide that the tenant has charged from the sub-tenant rent in excess of the standard rent of such premises or part. Standard rent is defined in sub-section (10) of sec. 5 of the Act. Where the standard rent is fixed by the Court standard rent is that amount. Even if the standard rent is not fixed by the Court the concept of standard rent does exist as defined in sub-section (10) of sec. 5. It is open to the Court in a suit for eviction under sec. 13(1)(j) of the Act to ascertain what the standard rent is and then to decide whether the case falls under sec. 13(1)(j) of the Act. In the instant case the Small Cause Court which was the trial Court decided that the standard rent was Rs. 240.00 per month plus taxes. This contention is therefore rejected.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.