^ff>b' ^ ^. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Second Appeal No.408 pf 2008 Ganpat Rao Thadnerwar versus Vikram Kanhe ORDER Post for pronouncement of order V .01.2009 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^^WS^WS^GITBSr^^SSS: • ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Second Appeal No. 408 of 2008 APPELLANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT APPLICANT Ganpat Rao Thadnerwar, S/o Late Appa Rao Badnerwar, Aged about 80 years, R/o Kanhe Bada, Kamasipara Gali, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Vs. Vikram Kanhe, S/o late Basant Rao Kanhe, Aged about 32 years, R/o Kande Bada, Kamasipara Gali, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE CHHATTISGARH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL_ACT Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ratan Pushty, counsel for the respondent. ORDER (Passed on this ^ day of January, 2009) Heard on admission. 2. The appellant/tenant has preferred this second appeal under Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an order dated 29.08.2008 passed by the 10* Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 6/2008. 3. Brief facts are that the respondenVlandlord moved an application under Section 10 (4) of the Act before the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur (henceforth 'the RCA') for fixation of standard monthly rent of thg. tenanted accommodation situated in the ground floor of House No.317, Kanhe Bada, Gol Bazar Ward, Raipur. It was prayed that standard monthly rent of the said accommodation be fixed at the rate of Rs.1500/-. The appellant/tenant resisted the said application on the ground that tenanted accommodation was situated on a built-up area of only 237 sq.ft. in the Kanhe Bada and no ground for enhancement of existing rent of Rs.125/- per month was made out. 4. The RCA by order dated 15.02.2008 fixed standard rent at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month predominantly on the ground that the annual property tax of the tenanted accommodation paid by the respondent/landlord in the Municipal Corporation, Raipurwas Rs.13,320/-, and therefore, dividing it by 12, the monthly reasonable rent was worked out at Rs.1100/-. Adding to this the existing rent of Rs.125/-, reasonable rent was determined at Rs.1225/-. 5 . Being aggrieved, the appellant/tenant preferred first appeal (Misc. Civil Appeal No.6/2008) under Section 31 of the Act before the 10th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur. The respondent/landlord also preferred cross-appeal for enhancement of reasonable rent determined by the RCA. 6. By the impugned order dated 29.08.2008, the 10th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur held that determination of standard rent on the basis of the annual property tax of Rs.13.320/- paid by the respondent/landlord was not in accordance with law because the property tax of Rs. 13,3207- pertain to the entire property of the respondent/landlord in Kanhe Bada and not to the tenanted accommodation alone. The learned Additional District Judge took into consideration the situation, locality and condition of the accommodation, the amenities provided therein and the soaring prices, determined standard rent at Rs.1225/- i.e. the rent determined by the RCA also. Cross-appeal preferred by the respondent/landlord was dismissed. 7. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the provision contained in Section 10 (4) ofthe Act could be adhered to by the RCA for fixation of standard rent only where it was not possible to determine the standard rent of any accommodation on the principles set forth under Section 7 of the Act. Placing reliance on Vithal Ramkishna Pendharkar v. The District Land Development Bank, Jabalpur, 1996 MPACJ 461 and President, Distt. OfHce Clerks Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Telecom Distt. Engineer, 1997(10) M.P.W.N. (167), it was argued that the impugned order passed by the 10 Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur was liable to be set aside. It was further argued that once the learned 10 Additional District Judge, by taking into consideration the annual property tax paid by the respondent/landlord, recorded a finding that the reasonable monthly rent determined by the RCA was erroneous since the appellant/tenant was in possession of only a portion of the Kanhe Bada on rent it ought to have remanded the matter for fresh consideration and determination of standard rent by the RCA. 8. Having considered the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant, 1 have also perused the impugned order as well as the order passed by the RCA and the annexures appended to the memo of appeal. A plain reading of sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act leaves no room for any doubt that where it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any accommodation on the principles set forth under Section 7 of the Act, the RCA may proceed to determine standard rent of any accommodation having regard to the situation, locality and condition of the accommodation and the amenities provided therein and where there are similar or nearly similar accommodation in the locality.having regard also to the standard rent payable in respect of such accommodations. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show that there was any material before the RCA either in the application under Section 10(4) of the Act filed by the respondent/landlord or the reply filed thereto by the appellant/tenant to determine standard rent on the principles set forth under Section 7 of the Act. In this view of the matter, standard rent of the tenanted accommodation could be determined under Section 10 of the Act after having regard to the situation, locality and condition ofthe accommodation and the amenities provided therein. The lower appellate Court rightly held that the RCA wasnot justified in determining the standard rent on the basis of annual property tax paid by the respondent/landlord because the tenanted premises was only a portion of Kanhe Bada for which the annual property tax was paid. The lower appellate Court has, therefore, while appreciating oral evidence led by the parties and after taking into consideration the fact that the tenanted accommodation was centrally located in the town, all daily needs were easily available within short distance, necessary amenities like well for water, latrine, electric connection were provided, a temple, school and other facilities were also located nearby and the condition of the house determined standard monthly rent at Rs.1225/- as also fixed by the RCA. l am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is neither contrary to law or usagehavingthe force of law nor has failed to determine some material issue of law. No substantial error of law is seen in the procedure followed. by the lower appellate Court which has, after taking into consideration the oral evidence adduced by the parties and having regard to the situation, locality and condition of the accommodation and the amenities provided therein, rightly assessed the standard monthly rent of the accommodation at Rs.1225/-. No ground for admission of the appeal is thus made out. 9. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage ofadmission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^^w.,it.-A^O»j»yMU.;Huiw^^ y