9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No. 3 of 1947. 2. Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is maintainable. 3. What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit. Summary: Issue 1: Maintainability of the Suit under Act No. 3 of 1947 The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was not barred because of the Act. The High Court agreed that the suit was maintainable if the accommodation was a new construction erected after June 30, 1946. The Supreme Court affirmed that the determination of the date of construction was a jurisdictional fact essential for the suit's maintainability. Issue 2: Maintainability of the Suit after Fixation of Rent by the House Allotment Officer The House Allotment Officer initially fixed the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem, later raised to Rs. 40 per mensem. The appellant then instituted a suit under s. 5(4) of the Act for enhancement of "reasonable annual rent." The High Court held that if the construction was an old one, the suit did not lie, and the agreed rent would continue to be payable. The Supreme Court concurred, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the civil court depended on the existence of a reasonable annual rent as defined under s. 2(f) and determined under s. 3-A. Issue 3: Determination of Reasonable and Proper Rent The Additional Civil Judge increased the "reasonable adequate rent" to Rs. 55-8-0 after considering the amount spent on the new construction. However, the High Court found that the construction in the respondent's occupation could not be called new construction, thus s. 3-A was not applicable, and the tenant was only liable to pay the agreed rent. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the trial court had wrongly assumed jurisdiction by deciding the date of construction erroneously. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the High Court correctly interfered under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the trial court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law. The appeal was dismissed with costs throughout.
|
