Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(3)This Court in Delhi Paints and Chemicals case after examining the relevant provisions of the Pm Act and the two judgments of the Supreme Court said as under:-
"CLAUSE(k) of section 2 of Drc Act defines 'standard rent' which, in relation to any premises, means the standard rent referred to in section 6 or where the standard rent had been increased under section 7, such increased rent. Section 6 of this Act provides for fixation of standard rent of the premises, both residential and non-residential. Section 9 of this Act provides as to how the Rent Controller under this Act is to fix the standard rent, etc., and under sub-section (4) of section 9 where for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises on the principles set forth under section 6, the Rent Controller may fix such rent as would be reasonable having regard to the situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities provided therein and where there are similar or nearly similar premises in the locality, having regard also to the standard rent payable in respect of such premises. Under section 5 of the Drc Act, subject to certain provisions of this Act, no person shall claim or receive any rent in excess of the standard rent, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. Section 3 of the Drc Act before its amendment specified the premises to which this Act was not applicable. Clauses (c) and (d) were added by the Amendment Act of 1988 which are relevant for our purposes and may be set out as under:- (c) to any premies, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds three thousand and five hundred rupees; or (d) to any premises constructed on or after the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, for a period often years from the date of completion of such construction.
(12) We are concerned here with addition of clause (c). Thus, nothing in the Drc Act shall apply to any premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds three thousand and five hundred rupees. This clause (c) envisages actual letting and Drc Act would not apply to the premises which have been let out for a monthly rent exceeding Rs.3,500.00 . This clause does not talk of any notional monthly rent. It has to be actual monthly rent when there is letting. When there is no letting the question of monthly rent exceeding Rs.3,500.00 would notarise. In that case provisions of sections 6,7 and 9(4) of the Drc Act would continue to apply, and so also the principles laid down in the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court in Daulat Rai Kapoor and Dr. Balbir Singh cases. Section 6-A was inserted in the Drc Act by the Amendment Act of 1988. This section 6- A is as under :- "REVISION of rent. - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the standard rent, or, where no standard rent is fixed under the provisions of this Act in respect of any premises, the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, may be increased by ten per cent every three years. " This section 6-A-A will also not apply where there has been no letting. Where premises which are self occupied concept of any monthly rent cannot be introduced and for arriving at annual value as defined in the Act one has to fall back on the provisions of the Drc Act as amended and the principles as laid down by the Supreme Court. Where, however, there is actual letting those premises are taken out of the purview of the Drc Act as in the present case. If so, section 6-A of the Drc Act can also not apply. N.D.M.C. on the one hand says that Drc Act as amended is not applicable, yet it is invoking the provisions of section 6-A of this Act which is impermissible. Addition of the annual value on the basis of section 6-A of the Drc Act has, therefore, to be struck down. N.D.M.C. cannot demand 10% increase in rent under the provisions of section 6-A-A of the Drc Act. We cannot agree with interpretation put by the petitioner that irrespective of the fact that Drc Act is not applicable to the premises in question the annual value has to be arrived at on the basis of the provisions of the Drc Act and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. We also cannot accept the other contention of the petitioner that since the flat in question was in existence prior to coming into force the amended Drc Act, the annual value would continue to be the same and that the amended Act is prospective in nature meaning thereby it would apply to the properties constructed after 1 December 1988" (4) In the case of Common Cause v. Commissioner, Mcd and another this Court observed as under:- "The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was amended by the Amending Act, 57 of 1988. Clause (c) of Section 3 of this Act as amended states that nothing in this Act, shall apply to any premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds three thousand and five hundred rupees. The concept of standard rent as he theretofore understood under 156 the Delhi Rent Control Act is, therefore, no longer applicable to such premises. Constitutional validity of the amendment has been upheld by this Court. Under Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act readable value of a building is to be assessed and under sub-section (1) the rateable value of any land or building assessable to property taxes shall be annual rent at which such land or building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. Then there are certain deductions. Then there is a proviso to this sub-section which says tht with respect to any land or building the standard rent of which has been fixed under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, rateable value thereof shall not exceed the annual amount of the standard rent so fixed. The necessary consequence of the amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act would prima facie be that the premises which are outside the purview of that Act its rateable value might have to be revised. "

(24) We may now refer to notices issued under section 126 of the Dmc Act to the seven petitioners who are petitioners 2 to 8 .In the notices issued to them against the column reasons in brief for amendment in the assessment list' the following reasons are respectively given :-

PETITIONERNo.2 - Additions/alterations/erroneously valued/increase in rateable value/including giving effect to amendments in the Drc Act, 1988.
PETITIONERNo.3 - Increase in R.V. due to Drc Act.
PETITIONERNo.4 - Increase in R.V. due to amendment in Drc Act.
PETITIONERNo.5-Increase in R.V. due to amendments in Drc Act.
PETITIONERNo.7 - Increase in R.V. due to amendment in Drc Act.
PETITIONERNo.8 - The property is fetching rent of (notice u/s 67-A more than Rs.3,500.00 per month, of the Pm Act) therefore protection of Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 is taken away in respect of your premises and ratio of Computing rateable value as pronounced by Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh case is not available in r/o above said premises. The assessment now is proposed to be made at the annual actual rent/market rent which the premises is fetching.