Y. Venkatakrishna Jois Vs. T. Venkataswamy - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....of the welfare of the minor. indisputably, the object of order 7, rule 11 is to keep out of courts irresponsible law suits, a tool in the hands of the courts. the question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under order 7, rule 11(a) cpc, is whether a real cause of action is set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise the power under order 7, rule 11(a). if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it must be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under order 10 of the code. suffice it to state that the family..........the courts below are of opinion that the cost of the building is rs. 8000/- and have fixed the fair rent at rs. 37-8-0 per month. it is stated that the built area of the house is about 1000 sq. ft. both the learned district judge and thelearned rent controller have assessed the value of the house at the rate of rs. 8/- per sq. ft. according to which the value of the built area is assessed at rs. 8000/-. the building has got a cement concrete roofing. in cases of this kind it is more usual to value the building on plinth area at the rate of rs. 10/- a sq. ft. even otherwise the courts below have not taken into consideration the value of the site on which the building stands and this should have been taken into consideration in fixing the fair rent of the building.i also think in cases.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This revision petition is against the order dated 28-8-1952 passed by the District Judge, Shimoga (Camp: Chickmagalur) in H. R. C. Appeal No. 2 of 1952-53 confirming the order dated 29-4-1952 of the Deputy Commissioner and Rent Controller, Shimoga in H. R. C. No. 120 of 1951-52.

2. The house was let out to the respondent by the petitioner on 30-1-1952 and the rent agreed to was Rs. 45/- a month. The Courts below are of opinion that the cost of the building is Rs. 8000/- and have fixed the fair rent at Rs. 37-8-0 per month. It is stated that the built area of the house is about 1000 sq. ft. Both the learned District Judge and thelearned Rent Controller have assessed the value of the house at the rate of Rs. 8/- per sq. ft. according to which the value of the built area is assessed at Rs. 8000/-. The building has got a cement concrete roofing. In cases of this kind it is more usual to value the building on plinth area at the rate of Rs. 10/- a sq. ft. Even otherwise the Courts below have not taken into consideration the value of the site on which the building stands and this should have been taken into consideration in fixing the fair rent of the building.

I also think in cases of this kind where the landlord and the tenant have come to an agreement about the rent payable, the presumption is that what has been solemnly agreed to may be taken as the fair rent unless it is shown that the landlord or the tenant has taken undue advantage of the need of the other. The presumption can no doubt be rebutted by placing materials for fixing the fair rent. The petitioner has not placed any materials worth the name to rebut the presumption.

3. The revision petition is allowed. The orders of the Courts below are set aside and fair rent is fixed at Rs. 45/- a month. Parties will bear their own costs throughout.

4. Revision allowed.