Central Bank of India Vs. L. Narendrapal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - the suit being one for enhancement of rent on the ground that the reasonable rent was inadequate and the court below having come to the finding that the reasonable rent was not inadequate it was clearly its duty to dismiss the suit and it had no jurisdiction to decree it......to decree it.3. enhancement' upto the extent of reasonable rent can be made by the landlord himself without any intervention of the court. the intervention of the court is sought for only when it is claimed that the reasonable rent was either excessive or inadequate. thus the court obtains jurisdiction to fix rent only if it finds that the reasonable rent is excessive or inadequate. it has no jurisdiction to fix the rent if the reasonable rent is found neither to be excessive nor to be inadequate. i thus find that the order of the court below is an order without jurisdiction.4. this application in revision is, therefore, allowed and the order of the court below is set aside. in the circumstances of the case i direct the parties to bear their own costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

Seth, J.

1. This is a defendant's application arising out of a suit under Section 5 (4), U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, III [3] of 1947. The premises were let to the defendant Bank by a registered lease some time in the year 1943 at a rent of Rs. 100 per month. The plaintiff claimed that the municipal assessment of the premises, on the relevant date in the year 1942, was Rs. 106-1-0 and that the reasonable rent therefore came to an amount in the neighbourhood of RS. 133. He alleged that even this was an inadequate rent and brought a suit under Section 6 of the Act for fixation of the rent at the rate of Rs. 200 a month. The suit was thus in effect a suit for enhancement on the ground that the reasonable rent was inadequate. It may be pointed out that before the institution of the suit the plaintiff had given a notice to the defendant enhancing rent to Rs. 200.

2. The Court below has fixed the rent at Rs. 132-9-S per month, which is .the reasonable rent according to the Act. Thus the Court below has come to a finding that the reasonable rent is neither inadequate nor excessive. The suit being one for enhancement of rent on the ground that the reasonable rent was inadequate and the Court below having come to the finding that the reasonable rent was not inadequate it was clearly its duty to dismiss the suit and it had no jurisdiction to decree it.

3. Enhancement' upto the extent of reasonable rent can be made by the landlord himself without any intervention of the Court. The intervention of the Court is sought for only when it is claimed that the reasonable rent was either excessive or inadequate. Thus the Court obtains jurisdiction to fix rent only if it finds that the reasonable rent is excessive or inadequate. It has no jurisdiction to fix the rent if the reasonable rent is found neither to be excessive nor to be inadequate. I thus find that the order of the Court below is an order without jurisdiction.

4. This application in revision is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside. In the circumstances of the case I direct the parties to bear their own costs.