Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Revision Petition No. 14 of 1954, decided on 30th November, 1954, for revision of an order of the Sub-Judge Quaetta dated the 27th February, 1954 fixing standard rent.
S. 3 (1)-No dispute as to rent in existence-Fixing of standard rent ultra vires.
S. 3 (1)- Standard rent determined with reference to other similar building -Party affected must be given opportunity to rebut.
Riyaz-ul-Hasan, for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
-The petitioner Mistri Muhammad Sharif has filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Sub-Judge, Quaetta, dated 27th February, 1954, where by the Lower Court fixed the standard rent of two shops belonging to the petitioner at Rs. 13 a month each.
The history of this case shows that the petitioner ap proached the lower Court with a request that standard rent should be fixed for the shops in question. Despite service of notice, the respondents failed to appear in the case and ex parte proceedings were taken against them. The petitioner was then allowed to produce the oral evidence of a Tax Muharrir and claimed that on the basis of this oral evidence the rent that he was receiving of Rs.16 p. m. was unduly low.
In accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Rent Control Regulation, the Lower Court proceeded to fix standard rent, In the order of which revision is now sought the standard rent of another shop situated in approximately the same vicinity, though on a different road, was taken into consideration ; and on the grounds that the area of this shop was greater than that of the shops for which standard rent was now required to be fixed, the Lower Court came to the con clusion that the standard rent should be Rs. 13 p. m. and passed an order accordingly. No opportunity has apparently been given to the petitioner to rebut the grounds on which the lower Court fixed the standard rent.
In my view there has been some misconception in this case and a careful stud v of the Rent Control Regulation with regard to the manner in which standard rents are to be deter mined is necessary. As the standard rent of the shops in question could not he fixed in accordance with the normal procedure which is defined in section 2 (c), (i) and (ii) the lower Court therefore proceeded to adjudicate upon this ques tion in accordance with the provisions of section 3 (1) and (2) et of the Regulation.
In so far as subsection (1) of section 3 is concerned, powers are given to a Court to determine standard rents only when a dispute arises. In this case, however, I cannot subs cribe to the view that a dispute has arisen, as the applicant/ petitioner submitted an application to the Court for the determination of the standard rent which has never been contested by his tenants at any stage of the proceedings. It follows therefore that no dispute had arisen and it was not within the competence of the Court to determine standard rent A under the provisions of section 3 (1). To this extent therefore the order of the lower Court is without jurisdiction.
I now turn to subsection (2) of section 3 which for facility of reference is reproduced below :-
"3, Determination of disputes regarding rent.---(1) If any dispute arises regarding the standard rent payable in respect of any premises, it shall be determined by the Court.
(2) Where for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises on the principles set forth in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (c) of section 2, the Court may, on the application of any person interested or of its own motion, determine the standard rent, and in so doing shall have regard to the standard rents of other similar premises in the same locality".
In brief, this section permits of a Court to determine stan dard rent upon the application of any person interested or of its own motion, while having regard to the standard rents of other similar premises in the same locality. It is true that the determination of standard rent in this case has been based upon the presentation of an application by a person interested, namely the applicant/petitioner who is the landlord of the premises in question. Equally the order determining standard rent has been based upon the standard rent of a shop which is alleged to be in the same vicinity. However that may be, I cannot believe that any Court is competent to determine standard rent even upon the basis of standard rents existing in the same locality without giving opportunity to any person B interested to state his case by way of rebuttal. In this case the result of the order of the lower Court is that although the landlord sought to increase his rent, the Court, by the deter mination of standard rent, has apparently reduced the rent below the figure previously paid by the tenants. Such order is of course to the detriment of the landlord himself who had applied for enhancement of the rent and who had led evidence, for what it was worth, in support of his application for enhanced rent.
I am also of the view that while subsection (2) of section 3 permits of a Court to determine standard rent of its own motion, the powers conferred by this section cannot take away the inherent rights of any person who is likely to be affected by the Court's order to be heard or to produce evidence in support of his case for increase or decrease in the rent. If that were not so, Courts would be armed with unlimited powers to determine standard rent without hearing any of the parties.
It is also arguable whether the plinth area of a shop is the sole or main factor which will govern the determination of standard rent. The Regulation does not specifically provide for the manner in which a Court will determine the standard rent other than upon the basis of standard rent already deter mined for similar premises in the same locality. In fact this basis is only a guiding factor for Courts which "shall have regard to" though not necessarily entirely governed by, they standard rent of other premises. There might be cases ins which the tenants of smaller shops should be required to pay higher rents than paid by the tenants of larger shops, because of the better situation or high cost of the former, or for many other reasons relevant to the case.
In the circumstances I consider that by determining standard rent, even though it was upon the basis of the standard rent of another shop alleged to be in the same vicinity, the Court acted without jurisdiction in not giving opportunity to the applicant-petitioner to rebut the circum stances on which the lower Court proposed to base its order. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and the case is remanded to the lower Court for determination of standard rent in accordance with the provisions of section 3 (2) of the Regulation after giving opportunity to the applicant (peti tioner) to lead evidence of rebuttal if he is still dissatisfied with the manner in which the Court proposes to determine standard rent.
A. H. Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer