Fixation of fair rent

Finding of facts given by the Rent Controller on the point of fixation of fair rent were concurred by the Appellate Court, thus, in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction High Court would not reappraise the evidence unless the same were proved to be perverse, based on misreading or non-reading of evidence

Powers in rent matters under constitutional jurisdiction of High Court are limited and confined only to ascertain whether the Courts below have flouted the statute or failed to follow the law relating thereto.

Rent Controller while granting relief was not bound merely by prayer clause but had to look into whole of pleadings and thereafter to grant relief as might be arising from it

Rent matter was in a nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and provision of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, were not strictly applicable

Technicalities could not be allowed to come in the way of granting relief in such proceedings

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court as the same was unexceptionable

Petition was dismissed.

Tenant filed appeal against the order of Rent Controller, which was dismissed by appellate court and also further enhanced the rent

Contention of the petitioner/tenant was that landlord had not filed any appeal against the order of Rent Controller, therefore further enhancement of rent by appellate court on the appeal of tenant/petitioner was illegal, coram non judice

Validity

Appellate court had no power to pass order in favour of respondent/landlord, who had not filed an appeal against the order of Rent Controller

Appellate court was required to exercise power reasonably, justly and fairly within the framework of the controversy which had been brought before the appellate authority and not in respect of a matter against which the landlord/respondent had no grievance because he had not filed any appeal

Appellate court was not justified to enhance rent, therefore the findings of the appellate court was not sustainable under law.

Appeal filed by the tenant against the judgment of Rent Controller having been dismissed by the Appellate Court, tenant had filed constitutional petition, which also having been dismissed by the High Court, tenant had filed petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court

Controversy before the Rent Controller was entirely of a factual nature

Evidence produced on record had pointed to the prevailing rent of the vicinity of the premises in question

Both Rent Controller and Appellate Court had fully considered evidence on record while fixing rent at Rs.80,000 P.M. which had been affirmed by the High Court

Supreme Court would not embark upon reappraisal of evidence and substitute its on findings for those of Rent Controller and Appellate Court

Counsel for the tenant had requested that the enhancement of rent should be fixed from the date of the order of the Rent Controller and not from the date of the application filed by the landlords

Supreme Court declined the request of the tenant

No justification being available for interfering in the concurrent judgments of the two courts as affirmed by the High Court, petition for leave to appeal was refused.

Very wide discretion has been conferred by law on Rent Controller to fix fair rent from the date of application or from the date of order and in suitable cases even from a date in between the two events

Discretion vested in Rent Controller or appellate authority is not arbitrary or whimsical

Discretion in fixing fair rent as well as period from which it would be made payable is to be exercised judiciously with great care and caution, being in the nature of public trust.