I. D. Dua, C.J.
(1) In January, 1958, Iqbal Rai applied for fixation of Standard rent of a portion of a single storeyed building in Shakti Nagar, Delhi. He stated that he was a tenant under the respondent landlords at Rs. 90.00 per month from and July 1957 but the agreed rent was exorbitant. This application was contested and the learned Saborninate Judge 1st Class, by his order dated 24th November 1959, fixed the standard rent at Rs. 600.00 per annum which comes to Rs. 50.00 per month. This was fixed with effect from 30th December, 1957.
(2) Ram Partap Bhandari and S.N.Bhalla, defendants in the trial Court, took the matter on appeal before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, who iaised the standard rent to Rs.75.00 per month by his order dated 14th February, 1981. The present revision against that order presented in 1961 has come up for final disposal today, about 7 years latter.
(3) The learned counsel for the petitioner tenant has very strongly argued that the order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge suffers from serious legal infirmities. According to him, the statute had fixed the rent of the premises in dispute by reference to the first letting which was at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per month. It may be pointed out that admittedly, it was at that time let out in two separate units fetching Rs. 25.00 each per month. The respondents' counsel submits that this cannto be the first letting of the premises which are now in dispute, for they are one unit consisting of btoh the earlier flats. The second point urged by the leaned counsel for the petitioner is that the only criteria on which the standard rent could be fixed was the value of the rent and the cost of construction, and proceeding to fix the standard rent by reference to the present amenities is contrary to law. According to him, if there were some improvements in the amentities by repairs and so on, all that the landlords was entitled to was a certain increase on the basis of the expenses incurred in farther repails.
(4) In my opinion, it would net be necessary for me to go into the question whether or nto the original letting of 1948 in two units can in law be considered to be tie first kiting for the purposes of the present fixation of the standard rent. Three unreported decisions, two by Weston C.J. and one by Bishan Narain, J. cited on behalf of the respondents, are undoubtedly there and though C.R. No. 395 of 1950 decided on 27th December, 1950 by Weston C.J. is sought to be distinguished by Shri S. N. Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the toher two revisions, namely C.R. No. 171 of 1951 decided on 27th June, 1902 by Weston C.J. and C.K. No. 593-D of 1957 decided on 1st January, 1959 by Bishan Narain, J. have nto been sought to be distinguished by him. Whether or nto the reasponing or the ratio of all these three decisions proceed on the same lines, does nto concern me. I, however, do feel that prima facie, a valid distinction may well be drawn between letting of two units of a premises and the letting oat of the entire premises for the purpose of fixation of standard rent. One can conceive of various coveniences which may be available to a person who takes the entire promises bat which cannto be enjoyed when the premises are taken on rent in separate parts. But in this case, I do nto consider it necessary to express any considered opinion on this aspect. The fact however, is undeniable that -here have been effected considarable improvements in the premises. Whether these are mere repairs or a re-construction is a matter on which again, I would be disinclined to enter into a dealed discussion on revision. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge has written a very deteiled and reasoned judgment with which I am nto prepared to interfere on revision because the decision arrived at appears to me to be eminently just. It is tine that section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act of 1952 confers a fairly wide power on this Court to call for the record and satisfy itself that the decision is according to law, but this power is, when all is said and done, discretionary and when I find that substantial justice has been done even in the matter of fixation of standard rent, I would be disinclined to interfere. Dearth of accommodation in Delhi and the increase in rent has gone so high that, in my opinion, for these premises Rs 70 per month can by no means be considered to be unjust or hard on the tenant. I do nto find any compelling or even cogent reason to go into the technical points sought to be raised which are again of doubtful vitality. The cause of substantial justice would nto be served by interfering with the amount fixed.
(5) For the foregoing reasons, I would decline interference and dismiss this revision with costs.