G JAYAMMA Vs. G KANNIAH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate litigation which has been pending for over 12 years. The petitioner before this Court is a land-lady. She instituted a petition under S. 8 (2) (i) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951 (Mysore Act 30 of 1951) hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act, praying that the tenant, who is the respondent in this case, should be evicted from the premises in question on the ground that he had fallen into arrears in payment of rent and that he had committed default in the payment of rents over a course of long period. The petitioner contended that the rent for the premises, payable by the respondent, was att the rate of Rs.60 per month on the basis of a lease deed executed on 31-8-1956. Calculated at that rate, the respondent was in arrears of rent. It appears that after the petition was filed into Court, an order was made by the Munsiff under S.8A of the 1951 Act for payment of the arrears of rent and current rent during the pendency of the petition regularly. The respondent paid the amount in accordance with the order.

(2.) The respondent contended that he had not committed any default in the payment of rent and even though there was any default in the payment of rents, there was a sufficient cause for non-payment of rents and that under the first proviso to S.8(2) of the 1951 Act, the petition was liable to be dismissed on his paying all the amount found to be due by him. The learned Munsiff who heard this case came to the conclusion that the petititioner was entitled to the relief under the provisions of the 1951 Act and directed eviction of the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Bangalore, and the case came up before the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, who by his order dated 31-10-1968 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Munsiff. Against the said order of the District Judge, the petitioner has presented this revision petition under S.17 of the 1951 Act. The scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under S.17 of the 1951 Act has been explained by the Supreme Court in M/s.Batchamian Sahib & Co. v. A. N. Channiah, C.A:452|62, SC. and Haji Abdul Latif Tayub v. Haji Mohd. Ismil Saheb, C.A.487/62 dt. 19-10-62 SC. According to the Supreme Court, on a true construction of the provisions of S.17 of the 1951 Act, the jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court would be similar to or identical with the jurisdction of the High Court under S.115 CPC. In the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court explaining the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court in revision, we have to examine the present case.

(3.) It appears that the respondent was occupying the premises in question as a tenant even prior to 31-8-1956 on which date Ext.P-7 the lease deed referred to above came into existence. After this lease deed was executed the respondent is stated to have filed a petition under S.4 of the 1951 Act for fixation of fair rent to the premises in question in F.R. No.36 of 1956 on the file of the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Civil Station, Bangalore. Before the fair rent could be fixed in that case, the respondent is stated to have withdrawn the petition. The result being, that there was no fixation of fair rent as such by the HR. & AC. It is brought out in the course of these proceedings that there was a panchayat in which the panchayatdars were requested to fix a reasonable rent for the premises out of Court. On the question that there was a panchayat, there is no disagreement between the parties. But the petitioner's case is that the panchayatdars fixed Rs.65 as a reasonable rent per month, but according to the respondent, they fixed it at Rs.35 per month. Subsequent to the said panchayat, the petitioner instituted this petition out of which this revision petition arises on 17-10-1958. During the pendency of this petition before the Munsiff, the respondent, instituted an independent proceeding in HRC. FR.301 of 1962 on the file of the House Rent Controller, Civil Station. Bangalore, under S.14 of the Mysore Rent Control Act (Mysore Act 22 of 1961), 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act, for fixation of fair rent for the premises in question. The House Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.45 per month. The appeal filed by the petitioner against that order in HRCA. No. 100 of 1967 before the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, was unsuccessful. The petitioner filed CRP. No. 1370 of 1968 on the file of this Court against the said appellate order, which came to be dismissed by this Court on 27-5-1970. In these proceedings, the fair rent of Rs.45 was fixed with effect from 29-12-1962.