Kapur, J.:— In my opinion this case has not been properly tried. Parkash Dev, the tenant, took on rent the ground floor of a house at Rs. 65 per mensem which included house tax, electricity charges and water charges on the 7th of July 1948. On the 4th October, 1948 he put in an application for fixation of standard rent. Two witnesses appeared in the box. A.W 1 Ram Gopal stated that he was in possession of a portion of the premises now in dispute about ten or eleven years before the application was made and he was paying Rs. 3 per mensem. He was examined in February 1949 and if he was in possession ten or eleven years ago his evidence would be irrelevant because he would be in possession in 1937 and 1938. The next witness on whom the learned Judge has relied upon is Lakhi Ram P.W 2. His evidence again is that he had a dalan and a kothri at Rs. 5 per mensem for five years till 1947, and he also says that Johri Mal had another dalan and a kothri and he was paying Rs. 6 per mensem. Mohammad Yaqub A.W 4 has stated that Ram Gopal and Hoti Lal lived in this house. As to A.W 2 beyond his bald statement there is no other proof that he was living in a portion of the premises in dispute. This is all the evidence that there is for the petitioner. This by itself in my opinion is wholly insufficient to prove what the rent was on the 1st of November 1939 and should have been rejected.
2. The landlord and his witnesses came into the box and they said that the premises in dispute had been let to one Net Chand for Rs. 65 a month and he produced Exhs. D.1 and D.3 Neither of these documents are traceable on the record and the learned Judge also has not referred to them.
3. The learned Judge has also referred to Municipal House Tax Assessment Register for the year 1948–1949 (A.3) where the rental value is given as Rs. 240. I have had occasion to refer to this matter before and as at present advised I am of the opinion that these documents are wholly irrelevant to prove the facts which had to be proved in the matter of fixation of standard rent which had to be decided only on matters referred to in section 7 of the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Restriction Act read with Schedule II of the Act.
4. In the present case in my opinion there has been a mistrial in the sense that the provisions of section 7 do not seem to have been present to the mind of the learned Judge who tried the case. I therefore quash all the proceedings and remand this case for retrial in accordance with the provisions of law. The costs will abide the event. Counsel's fee Rs. 32. The parties have been directed to appear before the trial Judge on the 30th of April 1951.
5. Case remanded.