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 Application No. 26 of 1956, decided on 29th October 1957, against the order of the District Judge, Quetta dated 18th June 1956, accepting appeals against the order of Civil Judge, Quetta, dated 8th February 1956.
, S. 115‑Powers of revision wide‑High Court may exercise jurisdiction even without a petition or on one from third person, or on a single peti tion against a consolidated order in several cases‑Consolidation.
Section 115 of the Civil P. C. gives very wide powers to the High Court in the exercise of revisional juris diction. The powers under this section are intended to be exercised with a view to subserve and not to defeat the ends of justice. This section does not require that there should be au application or that such application need necessarily be made by an aggrieved party. The revisional jurisdiction need not be invoked by any party to a suit or proceeding and may be exercised by the High Court of its own accord.
Held, that a single revision petition by the landlord against a single order of the District judge, which disposed of 6 consolidated appeals by tenants in a dispute about fixation of rent was not incompetent.
Mr. Jamala Kunwar and others v. Collector of Saharanpur and others A I R 1934 All. 4 and Lalta Devi and others v. Balkishan Chopra A I R 1933 Lah. 327 ref.
In re. Sri Sree Raja Velugotti Sri Govind Krishnaya chandrulu Varu Bahadur, Maharaja of Venkatagiri AIR 1930 Mad 346 distinguished.
S. 3 (2) (4)‑Landlord not debarred from applying for increase of rent up to the standard rent‑Application for standard rent in regard to premises built after 1st January 1939, competent.
Held, that a landlord is entitled under the provisions of Baluchistan Regulation (II of 1945), to file an application for fixation of standard rent.
The Regulation was not made for the benefit of tenants only.
There does not appear to be any bar to get the rent increased at the instance of the landlord up to the standard rent, provides the tests laid down for fixation of standard rent are strictly complied with.
Before the landlord can ask for an increase in rent, he has got to satisfy the Court, as required by subsection (2) of section 3 of the Regulation, that the standard refit of other similar premises in the same locality are higher. And in case subsection (2) of section 3 of the Regulation is not applicable and a difficulty arises in giving effect to the Regulation, then the Court is empowered under subsection (4) of section 3 to fix the standard rent at such amount as having regard to the provisions of this Regulation and the circumstances of the case it deems just.
It is true that no separate provision has been made in the Regulation for premises which were built or were let after the 1st of January 1939. But perhaps this was purposely omitted as such a case appears to be governed by subsec tions (2) and (4) of section 3 of the Regulation, which em power the Court to determine the standard rent in the circum stances specified in those subsections.
‑According to intent of law maker‑If words precise and unambiguous they should be ex pounded according to natural and ordinary sense.
The fundamental rule of interpretation of a Statute is, that it is to be expounded according to the intent of them that made it, but if the words of the Statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, no more is necessary , than to ex pound those words in their natural and ordinary sense ; the words themselves in such a case declare best the intention of the law‑maker.
M. Moqim Ansari for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ahmad Mirza for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 26th October 1957.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer