Balochistan Rent Control Regulation 1945 Balochistan Rent Control Regulation, 1945 Fixing standard rent does not constitute proof of lease deed, and actual receipt of rent should also be established when production of any lease deed is satisfactory. Will not be on In addition to substantiating the legality of this legal nature of the lease deed, the applicant will also need to suspect that he or she was actually paid the rent.
P. L. D. 1949 Baluchistan, 21
Before Bacon, J. C.
Seth MUSAJI-Plaintiff-Petitioner
Versus
ABDUL AZIZ and another-Defendants-Respondents
Civil Revision No. 1 of 1919, decided on 13th May 1949, under section 33 of the British Baluchistan Courts Regulation read with section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code
Baluchistan Rent Control Regulation, 1945-Fixing standard rent-Mere production of lease deed not satisfactory proof of rent--- Genuineness of deed and actual receipt of rent should also be established.
Mere production of a lease deed is not satisfactory proof of rent in cases of this nature. Besides proving the genuineness of the lease deed in a proper legal manner the petitioner should also be required to 'establish beyond doubt that he actually received the amount of rent specified in the rent deed.
Order
Bacon J. C.----I have inspected the shop in dispute and also a number of other shops in the same locality and ascertained their rent in the presence of the parties and their counsel. I have also examined the records.
I find that the shop in question originally consisted of two shops bearing No. 9 and 10 in a block of 5 shops belonging to the petitioner. Each one of these shops has a small back room, a latrine and a compound opening on to Chetan Bhoj lane. The shops Nos. 9 and 10 were made into one by removing the partition wall separating them and also the back room, the latrine and the compound were separated and let to other persons on rent. The petitioner alleges that the monthly rent of the back portion thus separated was Rs 8 or Rs.19 in the aggregate.
The shop on the west of shop Nos. 9 and 10 bears No. 11 while the two shops on the east of it are numbered 8 and 7 respectively. These numbers have been allotted by the owner himself as a private arrangement and do not correspond with those entered in the Municipal records.
The occupant of shop No. 11 paid Rs. 13-10-0 as monthly rent but on an application being made by the landlord to the Sub-Judge in 1947 for determination of its rent in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Control Regulation, 1945 it was held that the rent of this shop was Rs. 45-8-0 on 1st November 1939; and accordingly the standard rent was red at Rs. 51-3-0 on 16th June 1947. On a revision petition being filed in this. Court by the tenant Muhammad Bakhsh against the Sub-Judge's order my learned predecessor expressed the opinion that the order of the Sub-Judge fixing the enhanced standard rent at Rs. 51-3-0 was based on inadequate proof and he accordingly set aside the order of the lower Court and remanded the case to it with a direction to demand further proof from the landlord in support of his claim that the rent of this shop was Rs. 45-8-0 on 1st January 1939 and theft to pass fresh orders in the light of the additional evidence, produced. The matter, I understand, is still sub judice in the lower Court.
Shops Nos. 8 and 7 are let on a monthly rental of Rs. 35 and Rs. 39-14.0 respectively and this fact is not in question. The five shops in front of this block, across the road, are paying rent varying from, Rs. 47 to Rs. 25 a month.
The two shops in dispute, now made into one, were originally let to the respondent nearly six years ago on a monthly rent .of Rs. 28 but a dispute arose between the parties and the matter was brought into Court in 1947. The case was however compromised on the respondent agreeing to pay Rs. 37 a month and undertaking to vacate the premises after a period of two years commencing from 1st January 1947. This is evidently the arrangement to which a reference has been made in the concluding paragraph of the Sub-Judge's order of which revision is now sought.
In view of the facts stated above I am of the opinion that the order of the Sub-Judge, Quetta, fixing the rent at Rs. 37 a month was not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence, oral or documentary. I accordingly set aside this order and remand the case to the lower Court for fixing the standard rent in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Control Regulation after obtaining from the petitioner conclusive evidence in support of his allegations that shop No. 10 was let by him on a monthly rent of Rs. 35-8-0 on 1st January 1939. Mere production of a lease deed is not satisfactory proof of rent lit cases of this nature. Besides proving the genuineness of the lease deed in a proper legal manner the petitioner' should also be required to establish beyond doubt that he actually received the amount of rent specified in the rent deed.
Court-fee on this revision petition shall be refunded and the costs shall abide the result of the final decision in the came before the Sub-Judge Quetta. Decree-sheet to be made out accordingly.
A. H. Case remanded
Related judgments — Judicial Commissioner Court Balochistan, 1949
