P L D 1967 Dacca 21 (PLP)

HASAN, J.‑This Rule is directed against an order fixing the standard rent of the two premises together with other structures at Rs. 500 per month. The landlord opposite‑party filed an application under section 15 (1) of the East Pakistan Premises Rent Control Ordinance No. XX of 1963 before the House Rent Controller for fixing the standard rent of the premises in occupation of the petitioner. According to the landlord, the rent that was being paid by the petitioner was much less than that which is legally payable under this Ordinance. This claim of the landlord was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the monthly rent of Rs. 240 which was being paid by the petitioner to the landlord was more than sufficient for structures of the nature in question. It was further contended that the two premises were in dilapidated condition and the market value could not be Rs. 50,000 as claimed by the landlord but much less than that. It appears from the order of the House Rent Controller that on 22nd August 1964, the parties filed hazira in the first instance but subsequently the landlord filed a petition praying for time stating some grounds therein. The petition for time was rejected; and it appears that both the parties intended that the case might be disposed of on the documents filed by the parties. Accordingly the House Rent Controller took into consideration three affidavits, which were sworn and filed by the applicant, namely, the landlord and also a report submitted by the Executive Engineer who was ordered to do so. The House Rent Controller also took into consideration the Municipal valuation of the premises and on consideration of all the materials came to the finding that the market value of the two premises would be Rs. 40,000 and accordingly the annual standard rent thereof came to Rs. 6,

000. On this basis he determined the standard rent at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. It may be mentioned in this connection that the premises in question comprised of two double storeyed pucca buildings with 5 rooms each along with the motor garage, sanitary fittings and water connection, etc. Being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Mymensingh, upheld the order of the House Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Hence the Rule at the instance of the tenant. It is contended that by rule 7, the House Rent Controller while determining the standard rent is to take into consideration the followings: "(a) Cost of land, improvement of land and cost of con struction at the time of assessment, minus depreciation for the period from the date of construction upto the date of assessment. (b) The situation, locality, accommodation and type of accommodation such as amenities, and whether then premises are one and independent unit, or one unit partitioned into two or more portions. (c) The Municipal valuation of the premises from time to time. (d) The actual price of other houses in the vicinity for which the premises were sold . within the period of last 12 years. (e) In case of any transaction of the premises within last 12 years, the actual value under the said transaction. (f) The rent agreed ‑or fixed by Court or rent or compensa tion fixed by the Provincial Government when the premises was requisitioned for purpose of bona fide allotment." It appears that items (a), (b) and (c) have been considered. The only grievance is that items (d), (e) and (f) have not been con sidered. Item (f) does not arise for consideration as no facts have been stated by any of the parties calling for a consideration of item (f). Of course items (d) and (e) have not been considered inasmuch as no evidence has been led by any party in proof thereof. So we do not find any substance in this contention. The next argument is as per rule 4, the House Rent Controller should have issued summons for deposing in favour of each of the parties. We are unable to appreciate this argument. From the order of the House Rent Controller it appears that the parties filed haziras and whenever asked for directions were given for issuance of summons. Furthermore, on the date of hearing when the landlord asked for time and the prayer was rejected, it does not appear that the tenant prayed for time for producing witnesses. No explanation has been submitted why the tenant did not produce any witness though it appears that haziras were filed. If the tenant was not in a position to produce any witness, he should have asked for time but that was not done. Further it appears from the order of the House Rent Controller that the parties wanted the disposal of this matter on the papers already filed before them. The next ground of attack is that the report of the Engineer should not have been accepted as the rule does not provide for that. It may be pointed out that before the East Pakistan Premises Rent Control Rules, 1964 were framed, there was a rule which enjoined upon the House Rent Controller to obtain such a report and accordingly the House Rent Controller obtained such a report as enjoined by the rules there in force, but by the time the case was taken up for hearing that rule was replaced by the East Pakistan Premises Rent Control Rules, 1964. In our opinion by using that, the House Rent Controller has not acted without jurisdiction or acted with material irregularity. Next it has been argued that no opportunity was given to the tenant to expose the hollowness of the report of the engineer and the affidavits filed by, the landlord. We do not find any substance in this contention. We asked the learned Advocate for the petitioner to find out whether his client ever filed any application or prayed for adjournment for that purpose but he was unsuccessful to do that. In our opinion in view of the provision. "The Controller shall not‑ ignore the materials produced by the parties in support of the assessment of the market‑value of the premises." In Rule 7 the Controller acted within his jurisdiction in using the materials submitted by the parties. In our opinion, this does not at all call for an interference under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Rule is accordingly discharged with costs. A. SUBHAN CHOUDHURI, J.‑I .agree. K. B. A. Rule discharged.