MIRAN DEVI versus BIRBAL DASS

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 188 · Decided: 27-07-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D. 
E 
F 
G 
!SS 
MIRAN DEVI 
v. 
BIRBAL DASS 
July 27, 1977 
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, s. 4(2) (a), interpretation of 
-"In similar circu1nstances'', whether gorerns both "same" and "similar accom-
11101a1ion"-Rate of rent prevailing prior to 1st January, 1939, when can form 
bas1s for fixation of basic rent-Developn1ent of locality and general increase 
in size and prosperity of to1vn, 1vhether constitute a change of circumstances. 
In 1962, the respondent Birbal Dass took a shop on rent of Rs. 1151- per 
month, plus the taxes, from the appe11ant. 
Five years later, he applied u/s. 4 
of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for the fixation of fair 
rent of the building. The Rent Controller found the evidence adduced by BirbaJ 
Dass insufficient for fixing the basic rent u/s. 4(2) of the Act, and therefore, up-
held the contractual rate plus Rs. 10.15 paise per month towards taxes. 
The 
District Judge allowed his appeal and fixed Rs. 4.50 paise per month as the fair 
rent payable by him. 
The High Court dismissed the 
appellant's revision 
application. 
In this appeal by special leave, the Court examined the 
language of s~ 
4(2) (a), for determining, firstly, the prerequisite conditions for its application, 
and secondly whether the phrase "in similar circumstances" governs both ex-
pressions namely, "the same" and "similar accommodation". 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: ~1) The phrase "in similar circumstances" occurring ins. 4(2)(a), 
qualifies and governs both the expressions, namely, "the same" and "similar 
accoinmodation". 
The prevailing rate payable for the same building before the 
1st January, 1939 can form the basis of the fixation of the basic rent only when 
the same building was in existence in similar circumstances during that period. 
Identical will be ·the position with reference to the prevailing rate of rent for 
similar accommodation. [190 B~C] 
(2) The development of the locality would be a change in the circumstance 
and so will be if there has been an appreciable and substantial development of 
the premises or the building by alterations or new constructions after the 1st 
January, 1939. A general increase in the size and prosperity of the town will 
nut be sufficient to take the case out of the ambit of s. 4(2) (a). (190 E-F] 
Channa11 Singh v. Seva Ran1, 68, Punjab Law Reporter 335, approved. 
The Court observed : 
A general prosperity and increase in the population of almo~t each and 
every town in our country has led to substantial increase in the rate of rent 
due to the increased demands over-stepping the corresponding availability of 
the buildings. 
In order to prevent the charging of exorbitant rent in such a 
situation, the Jegislature has provided for a restriction in the demand for in-
creased rent. 
[190 F-HJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1984 of 1969. 
Appeal by Special 
Leave from the. Judgment ~nd ~)rder ~ated 
11-4-1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court m CIVIi Rev1s10n 
H 
No. 120 of 1969. 
V. C. Mahajan and Miss Kamlesh Bansal for the Appellant. 
B. D. Sharma for the Respondent. 
' . 
I 
.. j 
~ .l 
. ' 
MIRAN DEVI v. BlRBAL !JASS (Untwalia, J.) 
189 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UNTWAI.IA, J.-This is an appeal by special leave by the laud 
lady of a shop situated in Timber market in the town of Hissar in the 
State of Haryana. 
Respondent took the shop on rent of Rs. 175/-
per month plus the taxes on the basis of a Rent Note executed by him 
A 
in favour of the appellant on November 2, l 962. 
On November 24, 
1967, he filed an application under section 4 of the East Punjab Urban 
Rent Restriction Act, 1949-hereinafter called the Act, for fixation of 
the fair rent of the building. 
The Senior Sub-Judge, Hissar acting as 
the Rent Controller under the Act, found the evidence adduced by the 
respondent insufficient to enable him to fix the basic rent under sub-
section(2) of section 4 of the Act. 
In that view of the matter, he 
upheld the contractual rate of rent of Rs. 17 5 /- per month and adding 
B 
to that Rs. 10.15 paise on account of tax fixed the fair rent at Rs. 
185.15 per 
month. 
The respondent went up in appeal before the 
District Judge, Hissar who by hi's order dated January 16, 1969 allowed 
the appeal and fixed Rs. 54/- per annum i.e. Rs. 4.50 per month as 
the fair rent of the building. 
The appellant's revision before
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.