Case: Chaube Jagdish Prasad And Another Vs. Ganga Prasad Chaturvedi

1. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision o the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord who was the plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant before us and the tenant who was the defendant is the respondent2. The facts of this appeal are that in 1938 the respondent took on rent the accommodation in dispute which is termed a tal on a monthly agreed rent of Rs. 21-4 as. and was using the same for the purpose of stacking timber. A portion of it was a covered godown which had three walls and a kucha roof. On January 28, 1950, the appellant made an application to the House Allotment Officer under S. 3-A of the U. P Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. III of 1947) (hereinafter termed the Act) for the fixation of reasonable annual rent of the accommodation in dispute. He therein alleged that in January 1949 he had constructed anew a big godown 80 x 25 x 11 feet according to the instructions of the respondent and expended a fairly large sum of money on it and was therefore entitled to a monthly rent of Rs. 165. The House Allotment Officer fixed on February 18, 1950, the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem which on review was raised on May 25, 1950, to Rs. 40 per mensem. He held that the accommodation was not a newly constructed accommodation as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938. He determined the increase of rent on the basis of the building that was added by the new construction. He also held that :The cost of land, the floor area of godown and rent of other similar premises would be irrelevant as all of these existed before new construction and were included in rent before new construction3. The appellant thereupon instituted a suit on the ground of inadequacy of the reasonable annual rent under S. 5 (4) of the Act alleging that he had constructed the portion of the accommodation anew and put up ferroconcrete roof 80 x 25 feet and that the construction was undertaken at the request of the respondent who had agreed to pay enhanced rent but had refused to do so; that although the House Allotment Officer, Mathura had fixed the rent of the accommodation at Rs. 35 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 40 per mensem, the proper rent should not be less than Rs. 115 per mensem and therefore prayed for the enhancement of reasonable annual rent. The defence was that there was no construction at the request of the respondent but it had been undertaken in order to put up another storey on the top of the old building; that as far as the accommodation in possession of the respondent was concerned there was no new construction of accommodation after June 30, 1946; that the ferro-concrete roof had in no way benefited him, on the other hand the space at his disposal had diminished because of the number of pillars constructed and the lowering of the roof. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable under the Act and that no suit could be filed after the order of the House Allotment Officer. The relevant issues raised were:-(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No. 3 of 1947 ?(2) Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is not maintainable?(5) What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit ?4. The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was not barred because of the Act; that the suit against the order of the House Allotment Officer was maintainable; that newly constructed accommodation on the whole was bigger and more spacious than the old kacha hall and that the accommodation had increased and after taking into consideration the amount spent on the construction he increased the reasonable adequate rent to Rs. 55-8-01. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision o the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord who was the plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant before us and the tenant who was the defendant is the respondent2. The facts of this appeal are that in 1938 the respondent took on rent the accommodation in dispute which is termed a tal on a monthly agreed rent of Rs. 21-4 as. and was using the same for the purpose of stacking timber. A portion of it was a covered godown which had three walls and a kucha roof. On January 28, 1950, the appellant made an application to the House Allotment Officer under S. 3-A of the U. P Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. III of 1947) (hereinafter termed the Act) for the fixation of reasonable annual rent of the accommodation in dispute. He therein alleged that in January 1949 he had constructed anew a big godown 80 x 25 x 11 feet according to the instructions of the respondent and expended a fairly large sum of money on it and was therefore entitled to a monthly rent of Rs. 165. The House Allotment Officer fixed on February 18, 1950, the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem which on review was raised on May 25, 1950, to Rs. 40 per mensem. He held that the accommodation was not a newly constructed accommodation as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938. He determined the increase of rent on the basis of the building that was added by the new construction. He also held that :The cost of land, the floor area of godown and rent of other similar premises would be irrelevant as all of these existed before new construction and were included in rent before new construction3. The appellant thereupon instituted a suit on the ground of inadequacy of the reasonable annual rent under S. 5 (4) of the Act alleging that he had constructed the portion of the accommodation anew and put up ferroconcrete roof 80 x 25 feet and that the construction was undertaken at the request of the respondent who had agreed to pay enhanced rent but had refused to do so; that although the House Allotment Officer, Mathura had fixed the rent of the accommodation at Rs. 35 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 40 per mensem, the proper rent should not be less than Rs. 115 per mensem and therefore prayed for the enhancement of reasonable annual rent. The defence was that there was no construction at the request of the respondent but it had been undertaken in order to put up another storey on the top of the old building; that as far as the accommodation in possession of the respondent was concerned there was no new construction of accommodation after June 30, 1946; that the ferro-concrete roof had in no way benefited him, on the other hand the space at his disposal had diminished because of the number of pillars constructed and the lowering of the roof. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable under the Act and that no suit could be filed after the order of the House Allotment Officer. The relevant issues raised were:-(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No. 3 of 1947 ?(2) Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is not maintainable?(5) What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit ?4. The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was not barred because of the Act; that the suit against the order of the House Allotment Officer was maintainable; that newly constructed accommodation on the whole was bigger and more spacious than the old kacha hall and that the accommodation had increased and after taking into consideration the amount spent on the construction he increased the reasonable adequate rent to Rs. 55-8-01. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision o the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord who was the plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant before us and the tenant who was the defendant is the respondent2. The facts of this appeal are that in 1938 the respondent took on rent the accommodation in dispute which is termed a tal on a monthly agreed rent of Rs. 21-4 as. and was using the same for the purpose of stacking timber. A portion of it was a covered godown which had three walls and a kucha roof. On January 28, 1950, the appellant made an application to the House Allotment Officer under S. 3-A of the U. P Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. III of 1947) (hereinafter termed the Act) for the fixation of reasonable annual rent of the accommodation in dispute. He therein alleged that in January 1949 he had constructed anew a big godown 80 x 25 x 11 feet according to the instructions of the respondent and expended a fairly large sum of money on it and was therefore entitled to a monthly rent of Rs. 165. The House Allotment Officer fixed on February 18, 1950, the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem which on review was raised on May 25, 1950, to Rs. 40 per mensem. He held that the accommodation was not a newly constructed accommodation as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938. He determined the increase of rent on the basis of the building that was added by the new construction. He also held that :The cost of land, the floor area of godown and rent of other similar premises would be irrelevant as all of these existed before new construction and were included in rent before new construction3. The appellant thereupon instituted a suit on the ground of inadequacy of the reasonable annual rent under S. 5 (4) of the Act alleging that he had constructed the portion of the accommodation anew and put up ferroconcrete roof 80 x 25 feet and that the construction was undertaken at the request of the respondent who had agreed to pay enhanced rent but had refused to do so; that although the House Allotment Officer, Mathura had fixed the rent of the accommodation at Rs. 35 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 40 per mensem, the proper rent should not be less than Rs. 115 per mensem and therefore prayed for the enhancement of reasonable annual rent. The defence was that there was no construction at the request of the respondent but it had been undertaken in order to put up another storey on the top of the old building; that as far as the accommodation in possession of the respondent was concerned there was no new construction of accommodation after June 30, 1946; that the ferro-concrete roof had in no way benefited him, on the other hand the space at his disposal had diminished because of the number of pillars constructed and the lowering of the roof. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable under the Act and that no suit could be filed after the order of the House Allotment Officer. The relevant issues raised were:-(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No. 3 of 1947 ?(2) Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is not maintainable?(5) What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit ?4. The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was not barred because of the Act; that the suit against the order of the House Allotment Officer was maintainable; that newly constructed accommodation on the whole was bigger and more spacious than the old kacha hall and that the accommodation had increased and after taking into consideration the amount spent on the construction he increased the reasonable adequate rent to Rs. 55-8-01. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision o the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord who was the plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant before us and the tenant who was the defendant is the respondent2. The facts of this appeal are that in 1938 the respondent took on rent the accommodation in dispute which is termed a tal on a monthly agreed rent of Rs. 21-4 as. and was using the same for the purpose of stacking timber. A portion of it was a covered godown which had three walls and a kucha roof. On January 28, 1950, the appellant made an application to the House Allotment Officer under S. 3-A of the U. P Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. III of 1947) (hereinafter termed the Act) for the fixation of reasonable annual rent of the accommodation in dispute. He therein alleged that in January 1949 he had constructed anew a big godown 80 x 25 x 11 feet according to the instructions of the respondent and expended a fairly large sum of money on it and was therefore entitled to a monthly rent of Rs. 165. The House Allotment Officer fixed on February 18, 1950, the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem which on review was raised on May 25, 1950, to Rs. 40 per mensem. He held that the accommodation was not a newly constructed accommodation as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938. He determined the increase of rent on the basis of the building that was added by the new construction. He also held that :The cost of land, the floor area of godown and rent of other similar premises would be irrelevant as all of these existed before new construction and were included in rent before new construction3. The appellant thereupon instituted a suit on the ground of inadequacy of the reasonable annual rent under S. 5 (4) of the Act alleging that he had constructed the portion of the accommodation anew and put up ferroconcrete roof 80 x 25 feet and that the construction was undertaken at the request of the respondent who had agreed to pay enhanced rent but had refused to do so; that although the House Allotment Officer, Mathura had fixed the rent of the accommodation at Rs. 35 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 40 per mensem, the proper rent should not be less than Rs. 115 per mensem and therefore prayed for the enhancement of reasonable annual rent. The defence was that there was no construction at the request of the respondent but it had been undertaken in order to put up another storey on the top of the old building; that as far as the accommodation in possession of the respondent was concerned there was no new construction of accommodation after June 30, 1946; that the ferro-concrete roof had in no way benefited him, on the other hand the space at his disposal had diminished because of the number of pillars constructed and the lowering of the roof. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable under the Act and that no suit could be filed after the order of the House Allotment Officer. The relevant issues raised were:-(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No. 3 of 1947 ?(2) Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is not maintainable?(5) What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit ?4. The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was not barred because of the Act; that the suit against the order of the House Allotment Officer was maintainable; that newly constructed accommodation on the whole was bigger and more spacious than the old kacha hall and that the accommodation had increased and after taking into consideration the amount spent on the construction he increased the reasonable adequate rent to Rs. 55-8-01. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision o the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord who was the plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant before us and the tenant who was the defendant is the respondent2. The facts of this appeal are that in 1938 the respondent took on rent the accommodation in dispute which is termed a tal on a monthly agreed rent of Rs. 21-4 as. and was using the same for the purpose of stacking timber. A portion of it was a covered godown which had three walls and a kucha roof. On January 28, 1950, the appellant made an application to the House Allotment Officer under S. 3-A of the U. P Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. III of 1947) (hereinafter termed the Act) for the fixation of reasonable annual rent of the accommodation in dispute. He therein alleged that in January 1949 he had constructed anew a big godown 80 x 25 x 11 feet according to the instructions of the respondent and expended a fairly large sum of money on it and was therefore entitled to a monthly rent of Rs. 165. The House Allotment Officer fixed on February 18, 1950, the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem which on review was raised on May 25, 1950, to Rs. 40 per mensem. He held that the accommodation was not a newly constructed accommodation as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938. He determined the increase of rent on the basis of the building that was added by the new construction. He also held that :The cost of land, the floor area of godown and rent of other similar premises would be irrelevant as all of these existed before new construction and were included in rent before new construction3. The appellant thereupon instituted a suit on the ground of inadequacy of the reasonable annual rent under S. 5 (4) of the Act alleging that he had constructed the portion of the accommodation anew and put up ferroconcrete roof 80 x 25 feet and that the construction was undertaken at the request of the respondent who had agreed to pay enhanced rent but had refused to do so; that although the House Allotment Officer, Mathura had fixed the rent of the accommodation at Rs. 35 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 40 per mensem, the proper rent should not be less than Rs. 115 per mensem and therefore prayed for the enhancement of reasonable annual rent. The defence was that there was no construction at the request of the respondent but it had been undertaken in order to put up another storey on the top of the old building; that as far as the accommodation in possession of the respondent was concerned there was no new construction of accommodation after June 30, 1946; that the ferro-concrete roof had in no way benefited him, on the other hand the space at his disposal had diminished because of the number of pillars constructed and the lowering of the roof. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable under the Act and that no suit could be filed after the order of the House Allotment Officer. The relevant issues raised were:-(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No. 3 of 1947 ?(2) Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is not maintainable?(5) What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit ?4. The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was not barred because of the Act; that the suit against the order of the House Allotment Officer was maintainable; that newly constructed accommodation on the whole was bigger and more spacious than the old kacha hall and that the accommodation had increased and after taking into consideration the amount spent on the construction he increased the reasonable adequate rent to Rs. 55-8-01. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision o the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord who was the plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant before us and the tenant who was the defendant is the respondent2. The facts of this appeal are that in 1938 the respondent took on rent the accommodation in dispute which is termed a tal on a monthly agreed rent of Rs. 21-4 as. and was using the same for the purpose of stacking timber. A portion of it was a covered godown which had three walls and a kucha roof. On January 28, 1950, the appellant made an application to the House Allotment Officer under S. 3-A of the U. P Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. III of 1947) (hereinafter termed the Act) for the fixation of reasonable annual rent of the accommodation in dispute. He therein alleged that in January 1949 he had constructed anew a big godown 80 x 25 x 11 feet according to the instructions of the respondent and expended a fairly large sum of money on it and was therefore entitled to a monthly rent of Rs. 165. The House Allotment Officer fixed on February 18, 1950, the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem which on review was raised on May 25, 1950, to Rs. 40 per mensem. He held that the accommodation was not a newly constructed accommodation as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938. He determined the increase of rent on the basis of the building that was added by the new construction. He also held that :The cost of land, the floor area of godown and rent of other similar premises would be irrelevant as all of these existed before new construction and were included in rent before new construction3. The appellant thereupon instituted a suit on the ground of inadequacy of the reasonable annual rent under S. 5 (4) of the Act alleging that he had constructed the portion of the accommodation anew and put up ferroconcrete roof 80 x 25 feet and that the construction was undertaken at the request of the respondent who had agreed to pay enhanced rent but had refused to do so; that although the House Allotment Officer, Mathura had fixed the rent of the accommodation at Rs. 35 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 40 per mensem, the proper rent should not be less than Rs. 115 per mensem and therefore prayed for the enhancement of reasonable annual rent. The defence was that there was no construction at the request of the respondent but it had been undertaken in order to put up another storey on the top of the old building; that as far as the accommodation in possession of the respondent was concerned there was no new construction of accommodation after June 30, 1946; that the ferro-concrete roof had in no way benefited him, on the other hand the space at his disposal had diminished because of the number of pillars constructed and the lowering of the roof. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable under the Act and that no suit could be filed after the order of the House Allotment Officer. The relevant issues raised were:-(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No. 3 of 1947 ?(2) Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is not maintainable?(5) What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit ?4. The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was not barred because of the Act; that the suit against the order of the House Allotment Officer was maintainable; that newly constructed accommodation on the whole was bigger and more spacious than the old kacha hall and that the accommodation had increased and after taking into consideration the amount spent on the construction he increased the reasonable adequate rent to Rs. 55-8-01. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision o the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord who was the plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant before us and the tenant who was the defendant is the respondent2. The facts of this appeal are that in 1938 the respondent took on rent the accommodation in dispute which is termed a tal on a monthly agreed rent of Rs. 21-4 as. and was using the same for the purpose of stacking timber. A portion of it was a covered godown which had three walls and a kucha roof. On January 28, 1950, the appellant made an application to the House Allotment Officer under S. 3-A of the U. P Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. III of 1947) (hereinafter termed the Act) for the fixation of reasonable annual rent of the accommodation in dispute. He therein alleged that in January 1949 he had constructed anew a big godown 80 x 25 x 11 feet according to the instructions of the respondent and expended a fairly large sum of money on it and was therefore entitled to a monthly rent of Rs. 165. The House Allotment Officer fixed on February 18, 1950, the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem which on review was raised on May 25, 1950, to Rs. 40 per mensem. He held that the accommodation was not a newly constructed accommodation as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938. He determined the increase of rent on the basis of the building that was added by the new construction. He also held that :The cost of land, the floor area of godown and rent of other similar premises would be irrelevant as all of these existed before new construction and were included in rent before new construction3. The appellant thereupon instituted a suit on the ground of inadequacy of the reasonable annual rent under S. 5 (4) of the Act alleging that he had constructed the portion of the accommodation anew and put up ferroconcrete roof 80 x 25 feet and that the construction was undertaken at the request of the respondent who had agreed to pay enhanced rent but had refused to do so; that although the House Allotment Officer, Mathura had fixed the rent of the accommodation at Rs. 35 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 40 per mensem, the proper rent should not be less than Rs. 115 per mensem and therefore prayed for the enhancement of reasonable annual rent. The defence was that there was no construction at the request of the respondent but it had been undertaken in order to put up another storey on the top of the old building; that as far as the accommodation in possession of the respondent was concerned there was no new construction of accommodation after June 30, 1946; that the ferro-concrete roof had in no way benefited him, on the other hand the space at his disposal had diminished because of the number of pillars constructed and the lowering of the roof. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable under the Act and that no suit could be filed after the order of the House Allotment Officer. The relevant issues raised were:-(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No. 3 of 1947 ?(2) Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is not maintainable?(5) What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit ?4. The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was not barred because of the Act; that the suit against the order of the House Allotment Officer was maintainable; that newly constructed accommodation on the whole was bigger and more spacious than the old kacha hall and that the accommodation had increased and after taking into consideration the amount spent on the construction he increased the reasonable adequate rent to Rs. 55-8-01. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision o the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord who was the plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant before us and the tenant who was the defendant is the respondent2. The facts of this appeal are that in 1938 the respondent took on rent the accommodation in dispute which is termed a tal on a monthly agreed rent of Rs. 21-4 as. and was using the same for the purpose of stacking timber. A portion of it was a covered godown which had three walls and a kucha roof. On January 28, 1950, the appellant made an application to the House Allotment Officer under S. 3-A of the U. P Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. III of 1947) (hereinafter termed the Act) for the fixation of reasonable annual rent of the accommodation in dispute. He therein alleged that in January 1949 he had constructed anew a big godown 80 x 25 x 11 feet according to the instructions of the respondent and expended a fairly large sum of money on it and was therefore entitled to a monthly rent of Rs. 165. The House Allotment Officer fixed on February 18, 1950, the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem which on review was raised on May 25, 1950, to Rs. 40 per mensem. He held that the accommodation was not a newly constructed accommodation as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938. He determined the increase of rent on the basis of the building that was added by the new construction. He also held that :The cost of land, the floor area of godown and rent of other similar premises would be irrelevant as all of these existed before new construction and were included in rent before new construction3. The appellant thereupon instituted a suit on the ground of inadequacy of the reasonable annual rent under S. 5 (4) of the Act alleging that he had constructed the portion of the accommodation anew and put up ferroconcrete roof 80 x 25 feet and that the construction was undertaken at the request of the respondent who had agreed to pay enhanced rent but had refused to do so; that although the House Allotment Officer, Mathura had fixed the rent of the accommodation at Rs. 35 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 40 per mensem, the proper rent should not be less than Rs. 115 per mensem and therefore prayed for the enhancement of reasonable annual rent. The defence was that there was no construction at the request of the respondent but it had been undertaken in order to put up another storey on the top of the old building; that as far as the accommodation in possession of the respondent was concerned there was no new construction of accommodation after June 30, 1946; that the ferro-concrete roof had in no way benefited him, on the other hand the space at his disposal had diminished because of the number of pillars constructed and the lowering of the roof. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable under the Act and that no suit could be filed after the order of the House Allotment Officer. The relevant issues raised were:-(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No. 3 of 1947 ?(2) Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is not maintainable?(5) What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit ?4. The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was not barred because of the Act; that the suit against the order of the House Allotment Officer was maintainable; that newly constructed accommodation on the whole was bigger and more spacious than the old kacha hall and that the accommodation had increased and after taking into consideration the amount spent on the construction he increased the reasonable adequate rent to Rs. 55-8-01. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision o the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord who was the plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant before us and the tenant who was the defendant is the respondent2. The facts of this appeal are that in 1938 the respondent took on rent the accommodation in dispute which is termed a tal on a monthly agreed rent of Rs. 21-4 as. and was using the same for the purpose of stacking timber. A portion of it was a covered godown which had three walls and a kucha roof. On January 28, 1950, the appellant made an application to the House Allotment Officer under S. 3-A of the U. P Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. III of 1947) (hereinafter termed the Act) for the fixation of reasonable annual rent of the accommodation in dispute. He therein alleged that in January 1949 he had constructed anew a big godown 80 x 25 x 11 feet according to the instructions of the respondent and expended a fairly large sum of money on it and was therefore entitled to a monthly rent of Rs. 165. The House Allotment Officer fixed on February 18, 1950, the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem which on review was raised on May 25, 1950, to Rs. 40 per mensem. He held that the accommodation was not a newly constructed accommodation as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938. He determined the increase of rent on the basis of the building that was added by the new construction. He also held that :The cost of land, the floor area of godown and rent of other similar premises would be irrelevant as all of these existed before new construction and were included in rent before new construction3. The appellant thereupon instituted a suit on the ground of inadequacy of the reasonable annual rent under S. 5 (4) of the Act alleging that he had constructed the portion of the accommodation anew and put up ferroconcrete roof 80 x 25 feet and that the construction was undertaken at the request of the respondent who had agreed to pay enhanced rent but had refused to do so; that although the House Allotment Officer, Mathura had fixed the rent of the accommodation at Rs. 35 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 40 per mensem, the proper rent should not be less than Rs. 115 per mensem and therefore prayed for the enhancement of reasonable annual rent. The defence was that there was no construction at the request of the respondent but it had been undertaken in order to put up another storey on the top of the old building; that as far as the accommodation in possession of the respondent was concerned there was no new construction of accommodation after June 30, 1946; that the ferro-concrete roof had in no way benefited him, on the other hand the space at his disposal had diminished because of the number of pillars constructed and the lowering of the roof. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable under the Act and that no suit could be filed after the order of the House Allotment Officer. The relevant issues raised were:-(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No. 3 of 1947 ?(2) Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is not maintainable?(5) What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit ?4. The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was not barred because of the Act; that the suit against the order of the House Allotment Officer was maintainable; that newly constructed accommodation on the whole was bigger and more spacious than the old kacha hall and that the accommodation had increased and after taking into consideration the amount spent on the construction he increased the reasonable adequate rent to Rs. 55-8-01. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision o the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord who was the plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant before us and the tenant who was the defendant is the respondent2. The facts of this appeal are that in 1938 the respondent took on rent the accommodation in dispute which is termed a tal on a monthly agreed rent of Rs. 21-4 as. and was using the same for the purpose of stacking timber. A portion of it was a covered godown which had three walls and a kucha roof. On January 28, 1950, the appellant made an application to the House Allotment Officer under S. 3-A of the U. P Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. III of 1947) (hereinafter termed the Act) for the fixation of reasonable annual rent of the accommodation in dispute. He therein alleged that in January 1949 he had constructed anew a big godown 80 x 25 x 11 feet according to the instructions of the respondent and expended a fairly large sum of money on it and was therefore entitled to a monthly rent of Rs. 165. The House Allotment Officer fixed on February 18, 1950, the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem which on review was raised on May 25, 1950, to Rs. 40 per mensem. He held that the accommodation was not a newly constructed accommodation as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938. He determined the increase of rent on the basis of the building that was added by the new construction. He also held that :The cost of land, the floor area of godown and rent of other similar premises would be irrelevant as all of these existed before new construction and were included in rent before new construction3. The appellant thereupon instituted a suit on the ground of inadequacy of the reasonable annual rent under S. 5 (4) of the Act alleging that he had constructed the portion of the accommodation anew and put up ferroconcrete roof 80 x 25 feet and that the construction was undertaken at the request of the respondent who had agreed to pay enhanced rent but had refused to do so; that although the House Allotment Officer, Mathura had fixed the rent of the accommodation at Rs. 35 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 40 per mensem, the proper rent should not be less than Rs. 115 per mensem and therefore prayed for the enhancement of reasonable annual rent. The defence was that there was no construction at the request of the respondent but it had been undertaken in order to put up another storey on the top of the old building; that as far as the accommodation in possession of the respondent was concerned there was no new construction of accommodation after June 30, 1946; that the ferro-concrete roof had in no way benefited him, on the other hand the space at his disposal had diminished because of the number of pillars constructed and the lowering of the roof. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable under the Act and that no suit could be filed after the order of the House Allotment Officer. The relevant issues raised were:-(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No. 3 of 1947 ?(2) Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is not maintainable?(5) What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit ?4. The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was not barred because of the Act; that the suit against the order of the House Allotment Officer was maintainable; that newly constructed accommodation on the whole was bigger and more spacious than the old kacha hall and that the accommodation had increased and after taking into consideration the amount spent on the construction he increased the reasonable adequate rent to Rs. 55-8-01. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision o the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord who was the plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant before us and the tenant who was the defendant is the respondent2. The facts of this appeal are that in 1938 the respondent took on rent the accommodation in dispute which is termed a tal on a monthly agreed rent of Rs. 21-4 as. and was using the same for the purpose of stacking timber. A portion of it was a covered godown which had three walls and a kucha roof. On January 28, 1950, the appellant made an application to the House Allotment Officer under S. 3-A of the U. P Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. III of 1947) (hereinafter termed the Act) for the fixation of reasonable annual rent of the accommodation in dispute. He therein alleged that in January 1949 he had constructed anew a big godown 80 x 25 x 11 feet according to the instructions of the respondent and expended a fairly large sum of money on it and was therefore entitled to a monthly rent of Rs. 165. The House Allotment Officer fixed on February 18, 1950, the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem which on review was raised on May 25, 1950, to Rs. 40 per mensem. He held that the accommodation was not a newly constructed accommodation as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938. He determined the increase of rent on the basis of the building that was added by the new construction. He also held that :The cost of land, the floor area of godown and rent of other similar premises would be irrelevant as all of these existed before new construction and were included in rent before new construction3. The appellant thereupon instituted a suit on the ground of inadequacy of the reasonable annual rent under S. 5 (4) of the Act alleging that he had constructed the portion of the accommodation anew and put up ferroconcrete roof 80 x 25 feet and that the construction was undertaken at the request of the respondent who had agreed to pay enhanced rent but had refused to do so; that although the House Allotment Officer, Mathura had fixed the rent of the accommodation at Rs. 35 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 40 per mensem, the proper rent should not be less than Rs. 115 per mensem and therefore prayed for the enhancement of reasonable annual rent. The defence was that there was no construction at the request of the respondent but it had been undertaken in order to put up another storey on the top of the old building; that as far as the accommodation in possession of the respondent was concerned there was no new construction of accommodation after June 30, 1946; that the ferro-concrete roof had in no way benefited him, on the other hand the space at his disposal had diminished because of the number of pillars constructed and the lowering of the roof. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable under the Act and that no suit could be filed after the order of the House Allotment Officer. The relevant issues raised were:-(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No. 3 of 1947 ?(2) Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is not maintainable?(5) What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit ?4. The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was not barred because of the Act; that the suit against the order of the House Allotment Officer was maintainable; that newly constructed accommodation on the whole was bigger and more spacious than the old kacha hall and that the accommodation had increased and after taking into consideration the amount spent on the construction he increased the reasonable adequate rent to Rs. 55-8-01. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision o the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord who was the plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant before us and the tenant who was the defendant is the respondent2. The facts of this appeal are that in 1938 the respondent took on rent the accommodation in dispute which is termed a tal on a monthly agreed rent of Rs. 21-4 as. and was using the same for the purpose of stacking timber. A portion of it was a covered godown which had three walls and a kucha roof. On January 28, 1950, the appellant made an application to the House Allotment Officer under S. 3-A of the U. P Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. III of 1947) (hereinafter termed the Act) for the fixation of reasonable annual rent of the accommodation in dispute. He therein alleged that in January 1949 he had constructed anew a big godown 80 x 25 x 11 feet according to the instructions of the respondent and expended a fairly large sum of money on it and was therefore entitled to a monthly rent of Rs. 165. The House Allotment Officer fixed on February 18, 1950, the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem which on review was raised on May 25, 1950, to Rs. 40 per mensem. He held that the accommodation was not a newly constructed accommodation as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938. He determined the increase of rent on the basis of the building that was added by the new construction. He also held that :The cost of land, the floor area of godown and rent of other similar premises would be irrelevant as all of these existed before new construction and were included in rent before new construction3. The appellant thereupon instituted a suit on the ground of inadequacy of the reasonable annual rent under S. 5 (4) of the Act alleging that he had constructed the portion of the accommodation anew and put up ferroconcrete roof 80 x 25 feet and that the construction was undertaken at the request of the respondent who had agreed to pay enhanced rent but had refused to do so; that although the House Allotment Officer, Mathura had fixed the rent of the accommodation at Rs. 35 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 40 per mensem, the proper rent should not be less than Rs. 115 per mensem and therefore prayed for the enhancement of reasonable annual rent. The defence was that there was no construction at the request of the respondent but it had been undertaken in order to put up another storey on the top of the old building; that as far as the accommodation in possession of the respondent was concerned there was no new construction of accommodation after June 30, 1946; that the ferro-concrete roof had in no way benefited him, on the other hand the space at his disposal had diminished because of the number of pillars constructed and the lowering of the roof. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable under the Act and that no suit could be filed after the order of the House Allotment Officer. The relevant issues raised were:-(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No. 3 of 1947 ?(2) Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is not maintainable?(5) What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit ?4. The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was not barred because of the Act; that the suit against the order of the House Allotment Officer was maintainable; that newly constructed accommodation on the whole was bigger and more spacious than the old kacha hall and that the accommodation had increased and after taking into consideration the amount spent on the construction he increased the reasonable adequate rent to Rs. 55-8-01. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision o the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord who was the plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant before us and the tenant who was the defendant is the respondent2. The facts of this appeal are that in 1938 the respondent took on rent the accommodation in dispute which is termed a tal on a monthly agreed rent of Rs. 21-4 as. and was using the same for the purpose of stacking timber. A portion of it was a covered godown which had three walls and a kucha roof. On January 28, 1950, the appellant made an application to the House Allotment Officer under S. 3-A of the U. P Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. III of 1947) (hereinafter termed the Act) for the fixation of reasonable annual rent of the accommodation in dispute. He therein alleged that in January 1949 he had constructed anew a big godown 80 x 25 x 11 feet according to the instructions of the respondent and expended a fairly large sum of money on it and was therefore entitled to a monthly rent of Rs. 165. The House Allotment Officer fixed on February 18, 1950, the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem which on review was raised on May 25, 1950, to Rs. 40 per mensem. He held that the accommodation was not a newly constructed accommodation as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938. He determined the increase of rent on the basis of the building that was added by the new construction. He also held that :The cost of land, the floor area of godown and rent of other similar premises would be irrelevant as all of these existed before new construction and were included in rent before new construction

Reasoning:
17. The High Court, in our view, approached the question quite correctly when it stated that the question for determination was whether the accommodation had been constructed before or after 30th June 1946, and that it was constructed before that date the suit was incompetent and it after, the suit would lie. The contention raised by the appellant in this Court was that the decision of the trial Court as to whether the accommodation was constructed before or after 1st July 1946, cannot be challenged in revision in the High Court and he relied on the following observation of Lord Esher M. R., in theWhen an inferior Court or tribunal or body, which has to exercise the power of deciding facts is first established by Act of Parliament, the legislature has to consider what powers it will give that tribunal or body. It may in effect say that, if a certain state of facts exists and is shown to such tribunal or body before it proceeds to do certain things, it shall have jurisdiction to do such things, but not otherwise. There it is not for them conclusively to decide whether that state of facts exists, and, if they exercise the Jurisdiction without its existence, what they do may be questioned, and it will be held that they have acted without jurisdiction. But there is another state of things which may exist. The legislature may intrust the tribunal or body with a jurisdiction, which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary state of facts exists as well as the jurisdiction on finding that a does exist, to proceed further or do something more. When the legislature are establishing such a tribunal or body with limited jurisdiction they give them, whether there shall be any appeal from their decision, for there will be none. In the second of two cases I have mentioned it is an erroneous application of the formula to say that the tribunal cannot give themselves jurisdiction by wrongly deciding certain facts to exist, because the legislature gave them jurisdiction to determine all the facts, including the existence of the preliminary facts on which the further exercise of their jurisdiction depends; and if they were given jurisdiction so to decide, without any appeal being given, there is no appeal from such exercise of their jurisdictionThese observations which relate to inferior Courts or tribunals with limited jurisdiction show that there are two classes of cases dealing with the power of such a tribunal (1) where the legislature entrusts a tribunal with the jurisdiction including the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary state of facts on which the exercise of its jurisdiction depends exists and (2) where the legislature confers jurisdiction on such tribunals to proceed in a case where a certain state of facts exists or is shown to exist. The difference is that in the former case the tribunal has power to determine the facts giving it jurisdiction and in the latter case it has only to see that a certain state of facts exists. In the present case the appellant asked for a determination of reasonable annual rent under S. 3-A on the ground that the accommodation was constructed after 30th June 1946, and the House Allotment Officer therefore had power to determine the reasonable annual rent18. In order to give jurisdiction to the civil Court there had to be in existence a reasonable annual rent as defined under S. 2(f) whether it fell within its first two clauses or was determined under S. 3-A. The reasonable annual rent could be varied at the instance of the landlord or the tenant on the ground of its inadequacy or excess but the landlord could not bring a suit to vary the agreed rent nor could the Court entertain such a suit although it was open to the tenant to do so and the Court could at his instance entertain such a suit. The proceedings before the civil Court are not by way of an appeal from any order under S. 3-A made by the District Magistrate19. Section 115, Civil P. C., empowers the High Court, in cases where no appeal lies, to satisfy itself on three matters: (a) that the order made by the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise its jurisdiction; (c) that in exercising the jurisdiction the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity that is by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision.Per Sir John Beaumont in Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. Hindu Religious Endowment Board, Madras, 76 Ind App 67 at p. 73:(AIR 1949 P C 156 at p. 158).Therefore if an erroneous decision of a subordinate Court resulted in its exercising jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failing to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or acting with material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction the case for the exercise of powers of revision by the High Court is made out.In Joy Chand Lal Babu v. Kamalaksha Chaudhury, 76 Ind App 131 : (A I R 1949 P C 239) the subordinate Court gave an erroneous decision that the loan was a commercial loan and therefore refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law and the Privy Council held that it was open to the High Court to interfere in revision under S. 115. Sir John Beaumont said at p. 142 ( of Ind App):(at p. 242 of AIR):There have been a very large number of decisions of Indian High Courts on S. 115 to many of which their Lordships have been referred. Some of such decisions prompt the observation that High Courts have not always appreciated that although error in a decision of a subordinate Court does not by itself involve that the subordinate Court has acted illegally or with material irregularity so as to justify interference in revision under sub-s. (c), nevertheless, if the erroneous decision results in the subordinate Court- exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failing to exercise a jurisdiction so vested a case for revision arises under subs. (a) or sub-s. (b) and sub-s. (c) can be ignored. The cases of Babu Ram v. Munnalal, 49 All 454 : (A I R 1927 All 358)   and Hari Bhikaji v. Naro Vishvanath, ILR 9 Bom 432 may be mentioned as cases in which a subordinate Court by its own erroneous decision (erroneous that is, in view of the High Court). In the one case on a point of limitation and in the other on a question of resjudicata, invested itself with a jurisdiction which in law it did not possess; and the High Court held, wrongly their Lordships think, that it had no power to interfere in revision to prevent such a result, in the present case their Lordships are of the opinion that the High Court, on the view which it took that the loan was not a commercial loan had power to interfere in revision under sub-s. (b) of 5, 115In Keshardeo Chamria v.Radha Kissen, 1953 S C R 136 : (A I R 1953 S C 23), both these judgments of the Privy Council as also the previous judgments in Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh, 11 Ind App 237 (P C), and Balakrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar, 44 Ind App 261 : (A I R 1917 P C 71), were reviewed and it was held that S. 115, Civil P. C., applies to matters of jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise or non-exercise of it or the illegal assumption of it. Thus if a subordinate court had jurisdiction to make the order it made and has not acted in breach of any provision of law or committed any error of procedure which is material and may have affected the ultimate decision, then the High Court has no power to interfere. But it on the other hand it decides a jurisdictional fact erroneously and thereby assumes jurisdiction not vested in it or deprives itself of jurisdiction so vested then the power of interference under S. 115, Civil P. C., becomes operative20. The appellant also relied on Brij Raj Krishna v. S. K. Show and Bros., 1951 S C R 145 : (A I R 1951 S C 115), where this Court quoted with approval the observations of Lord Esher in 1888-21Q BD 313, (supra) andColonial Bank of Australia v. Willan, (1874) 5 P C 417, 443,where Sir James Colville said :Accordingly the authorities..............,establish that an adjudication by a Judge having jurisdiction over the subject matter is, it no defect appears on the face of it, to be taken as conclusive of the facts stated therein and that the Court of Queens Bench will not on certiorari quash such an adjudication on the ground that any such fact, however essential has been erroneously foundBut these observations can have no application to the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge whose jurisdiction in the present case is to be determined by the provisions of S. 5 (4) of the Act. And the power of the High Court to correct questions of jurisdiction is to be found within the four corners of S. 115, Civil P. C. If there is an error which falls within this section the High Court will have the power to interfere, not otherwise