ROSHAN LAL MEHRA versus ISHWAR DAS

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 947 · Decided: 02-08-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
2 s.c.R . 
·.~· . 
. .. : 
' 
". 
, 
-·: -· 
·: 
·._. 
' 
_:: 
SUPRE~ffi COURT REPORTS---;947--
' 
• 
. 
In ·our judgment, the· decision of the High 
Court is . correct; · and the appeal is dismissed with 
costs.· 
.Appeal dismissed. 
---
. ROSHAN LAL 1\IEHRA 
ISHWAR DAS. 
(B. P. SINHA; C.J., S.K. DAS, 
A. K .. SARKAR; 
N_, RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR 'lnd J.R; 1\IuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Standard rent, (fixati<m of-Neirly Constructed .and old 
buildings-Cla8sification, if· .-iolatii-e of fundamental right and 
principksof natural.iustice-:-Constitution of India, Art •. 14-:-
Delhi and Ajmer-Marwara Rent Control Act, 1947 (Act XIX of 
1941), SS. 7, 7A, Sch. IV. 
. 
. 
··. The ·appellants applied to the Rent Controller· for' ·fixa. 
tion of fair and standard rent of certain shops and other 
premises alleging that the rent charged by the landlords was 
exorbitant. 
The questions arising for detennination were . 
(I) wbethei; the Delhi and Ajmer-Marwara Rent Control Act, 
1947· in so far as it provided for the fixation of standard rent 
in respect of premises the construction of which was completed 
after March 24," 1947 by the Rent Controller violated the 
fundamental right guaranteed under'Art. 14 of the Constitu-
tion; and (2) whether the procedure to be followed by the Rent 
Controller violated the principles of natural justice •. 
Held, thats. 7Aand the relevant provisions of Sch. IV 
of the Act laying down the proce<Jure for fixing standard rent 
by t!JJ' Rent Controller are not· unconstitutional and do not 
violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. The classification between 
premises the ·construction of which was completed before 
March 24, 1947.when the Act came into force and those which 
• 
\\·ere_ completed :thereafter, is reasonable,. and the cr~teria for 
the fixation ·-Of-standard rent for both old and new buildings· 
under tl:e Act were not substantially different. 
· 
.. ·.-.. The. procedure laid down Wider those provisions docs not 
:.violate the principles of natural juatice.~ The power given to 
the Rent Controller is not arbitraiy and he has to exercise it 
on a judicial_ consideration of all the cir.<UJDstar.~cs of th_e caoc. 
, . 
·--~--
_ kanslii&.m 
Jagardfoth., 
-_.' V.•. ; •. ~ 
Tht Stiitt 
HidayatuUah J • 
1961 
-
A1Jgust 2. 
1961 
Roshan Lil 
.Mehra 
v. 
la.%U'ar Das 
948 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1962] 
G.D. Soni v. 8. N. Bhalla, A.LR. 
1959 Punj. 381 
approved. 
.J..''e.u) Prakash Transport Co. 
Ltd. 
v. 
}{eu• Suuiarna 
TransPorl Co. Ltd., (1957) S.C.R. 98, Union of India v. T.R. 
Verma (1958) S.C.R. 499 followed. 
In the instant case ample opportunity was given to the 
landlord for producing all relevant evidence in the case which 
he did not avail him<elf of. It was not necessary under para 
2, Sch. IV, to have two enquiries one for ascertaining whether 
there were good reasons for believing that the rent charged 
was exorbitant and another for fixing the standard rent. 
The proceedings before the Rent Controller were not 
vitiated merely because standard rent of certain vacant shops 
was also fixed in the process of fixing the standard rent for the 
entire building in \\•hirh those shops were situated; that \vould 
not affect the le~ality of the fixation of the rent for the shops 
which had heen let out to tenants. 
CrnL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 171 of 1958. 
Appeal by sp0cial leave from the Judgment 
and order dated March 7, 1956, of the Punjab High 
Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil Misc. No. 
249-D of 1956. 
WITH 
Oivil Appeals Nos. 172 to 186 of 1958. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated · 
August 26, 1954, of the Punjab High Court in Civil 
Revisions Nos. 243, 274, 276, 277, 281 to 286, 288, 
290 and 293 and 295 of 1951. 
Anoop Singh, for the 
appellant in Civil 
Appeal No. 171 of 1958. 
Basant Kitrnar Jaggi, for the r11spondent. 
(In Civil Appal" Nos. 172 to 186 of 1958). 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathy Iyer 
anrl G. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants in Civil 
Appeale Xos. 172 to 186 of 1958. 
C. K. D(tphta.ry, Solicitor General of India, 
C.R. Aggarw,~la and K.P. Gupta, for the respondents 
Nos. 1 to 4. 
, 
t 
I 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
949 
19fil. August 2. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
S. K. DAS, .J.-These are 16 apiieals which 
have been heard together. For facility of consi-
dering them on merits, it would be convenient to 
classify them into three categories. In the first 
category fall Civil Appeals Nos. 172 to 184 of l £•58. 
In '

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.