THOGATAVEERA SANGHA Vs. R M SHENOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision Petition is filed by the landlord of premises bearing No. 22, Sampangi Tank Road, Bangalore. The premises in question was leased in favour of the respondent by lease deed dated 1-7-1971, for an agreed rent of Rs. 650/- per month. It appears that the tenant had paid Rs. 2500/-as advance. Thereafter the tenant initiated proceedings for fixation of fair rent in HRC FR 1/1973. That application was allowed on 19-11-1973 and the fair rent was fixed at Rs. 150/-. As against this order, landlord filed an appeal before the District Judge, Bangalore, in HRC No 67 of 1974. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal on 11-8-1976, on the ground that five years had not elapsed from the date of construction and therefore provisions of Part II of the Rent Control Act were net applicable and the provisions for fixation of fair rent were not attracted. Against this order, the tenant had filed W.P.No. 10605/1975. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 18-11-1976.

(2.) On 4-3-1977, the landlord issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and terminated the lease Thereafter the landlord filed O.S. No. 503 of 1977, which is renumbered as O.S. No. 1807 of 1980, for possession and for arrears of rent. That suit is still pending. Meanwhile, the tenant filed another application for fixation of fair rent in HRC FR 1/1977. That application was rejected by the House Rent Controller on 24-1-1978. It is necessary to mention that the said application was rejected on the ground that the earlier application having been rejected, Section 45 of the Rent, Control Act was a bar and therefore the tenant could not maintain this application. Thereafter, the tenant had filed another application in HRC FR 27 of 1981, on 23-12-1980. This application has been allowed by the Rent and Accommodation Controller on 31-5-1983, and the fair rent is fixed at Rs. 350/- per month. It is this order that is challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) Mr. V.H.Ron for the landlord urged two contentions - his first contention was that in view of Section 45 of the Act, the third application filed by the tenant was not maintainable; secondly he contended that in view of the termination of the tenancy by the notice dated 4-3-1987, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. He strongly relied upon a decision of this Court in Raghunandan Prasad v. Sreeramasetty, 1974(2) KLJ 224.