Skip to content


Hursuk Das-thakur Das Vs. Gouri Charan Law and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in87Ind.Cas.796
AppellantHursuk Das-thakur Das
RespondentGouri Charan Law and anr.
Excerpt:
calcutta rent act (iii of 1920), section 15 - application for fixing standard rent-premises originally let as part of larger premises--rent collector, power of, to make enquiry determining proportionate rent of premise in dispute. - .....of rent in respect of premises no. 26 khangrapattj road should not he set aside and the rent controller directed to deal with the application on its merits. the petitioners took a lease for 10 years of premises nos. 23 23-1, 24, 25 and 26 khangrapatty street at a rental of rs. 325 a month. the petitioners let out four of these premises in november 1918 at a rental of rs. 266 and used premises no. 26 for residental purposes. on the expiry of the lease on the 1st of february 1924 the landlord who is the opposite party before us took possession of premises nos. 23, 23-1, 24 and 25 khaugrapatty street and demanded rent at rs. 250 a month for premises no. 26. the petitioners thereupon applied before the rent controller for fixing of standard rent for premises no. 26. the rent.....
Judgment:

1. This Rule was grantee calling upon the Rent Controller to show cause why a certain order of the 22nd September 1924 dismissing the petitioners application for standardisation of rent in respect of premises No. 26 Khangrapattj Road should not he set aside and the Rent Controller directed to deal with the application on its merits. The petitioners took a lease for 10 years of premises Nos. 23 23-1, 24, 25 and 26 Khangrapatty Street at a rental of Rs. 325 a month. The petitioners let out four of these premises in November 1918 at a rental of Rs. 266 and used premises No. 26 for residental purposes. On the expiry of the lease on the 1st of February 1924 the landlord who is the opposite party before us took possession of premises Nos. 23, 23-1, 24 and 25 Khaugrapatty Street and demanded rent at Rs. 250 a month for premises No. 26. The petitioners thereupon applied before the Rent Controller for fixing of standard rent for premises No. 26. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the 22nd September last holding that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the whole of the premises were let out on the 1st of November 1918 at a rent exceeding Rs. 250 a month and that by virtue of the last amending Rent Act premises, the rent of which exceeded Rs. 250 a month on the 1st of November 1918, were-excluded from the further operation of the Calcutta Rent Act. We think that this view is incorrect. It may, for the purpose of fixing of standard rent, be necessary for him to decide what portion of the rent of premises in excess of Rs. 250 a month was to be allocated in respect of premises No. 26, But even so we do not think that the last amending Calcutta Rent Act precludes him from making any such enquiry if it is necessary for the determination of a question such as arises on the present petition. Premises No. 26 were let out at a rental of Rs. 250. These would clearly fall within the provisions of the Calcutta Rent Act as now subsisting and this it seems to us gives the Rent Controller jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

2. We accordingly make the Rule absolute and the Rent Controller will deal with the application on its merits.

3. We make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //