Civil suit for compensation over requisitioned property remains maintainable absent express statutory bar; fair rent depends on market factors, not construction cost

A suit for compensation for use and occupation of requisitioned immovable property was held maintainable because Rule 59-A authorised requisition and incidental possession, but did not expressly bar a civil claim for compensation or exclude civil court jurisdiction by necessary implication. The court also found the original rent unsupported by adequate material, holding that fair rental value must depend on suitability, locality, and prevailing rents rather than construction cost alone, and reduced the decretal rent accordingly. The defendant's request for set-off for repairs failed because prior notice to carry out repairs was absent and the necessity of the expenditure was not proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a suit for compensation for use and occupation of requisitioned immovable property was barred by the Defence Rules and the Ordinance; (ii) whether the decretal rent was excessive and required reduction; (iii) whether the defendant was entitled to set-off for repairs.

Issue (i): whether a suit for compensation for use and occupation of requisitioned immovable property was barred by the Defence Rules and the Ordinance.

Analysis: Rule 59-A authorised requisition and incidental acts necessary to take possession, but the claim for compensation was treated as distinct from the act of requisition itself. In the absence of an express statutory bar, exclusion of civil court jurisdiction could not be inferred. The suit for compensation for immovable property requisitioned by the Government was therefore maintainable.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred and the objection to maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): whether the decretal rent was excessive and required reduction.

Analysis: The rent fixed by the trial court at Rs. 1,200 per month was not supported by adequate material. The cost of construction could not be treated as the proper basis for rent. The relevant considerations were the suitability of the premises, locality, and prevailing rents, and on the evidence available the fair rental value was assessed with reference to the value accepted by the parties for the property.

Conclusion: The rent was reduced to Rs. 750 per month and the decretal amount was correspondingly lowered.

Issue (iii): whether the defendant was entitled to set-off for repairs.

Analysis: No notice had been given to the plaintiff to carry out repairs, and necessity of the repairs was not established to the required extent. The claimed expenditure therefore could not be adjusted against the plaintiff's dues.

Conclusion: The claim for set-off was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reducing the amount decreed in favour of the plaintiff, while the remaining objections were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit for compensation arising from requisitioned immovable property is maintainable unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes civil court jurisdiction, and fair rent must be determined on relevant market and locational factors rather than construction cost alone.

---