K RAMACHANDRA PRABHU Vs. B GOPALA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of certain proceedings before the Rent Controller, Kozhikode in R. C. 94 of 1953 on his file. The building involved in the said Rent Control case is a non residential building belonging to the tarwad of respondent 1 here, B Gopala Menon, and the revision petitioner here, Ramachandra Prabhu, was in possession of it for some years under a lease from Gopala Menon. On the 1st June 1951, Ramachandra Prabhu, agreed to an enhancement of the rent and gave a letter to Gopala Menon undertaking to pay thereafter rent at the rate of Rs 125 per month and to pay the same by the 30th day of the month. Alleging that Ramachandra Prabhu had paid rent at this rate till the 29th February 1952 and had defaulted to pay rent thereafter and that he had also sublet the building to a syndicate and two other persons and was collecting a rent of over Rs. 300 per month from the sublessees, Gopala Menon filed R. C. 94 of 1953 before the Rent Controller of Kozhikode on 10-3-1953 praying for recovery of possession of the building with arrears of rent. Ramachandra Prabhu as well as the sublessees were made parties to the Rent Control Case. Ramachandra Prabhu who was respondent 1 in the Rent Control proceedings filed a counter statement on 6-4-1953. He admitted in that statement that on account of a notice issued to him by Gopala Menon he had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 125 per month from 1-6-1951 and had also paid rent at that rate for some time. But he contended that the original rent fixed as per a lease deed dated 30th Sept. 1946 was only Rs. 24 per month, that the enhancement in June 1951 was illegal and could not be given effect to as the landlordhad not done anything in the property entitling him to claim an enhancement, that there would be no arrears if the excess rent realised from him during the period he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 125 per month was adjusted towards the rent for the period in respect of which Gopala Menon was claiming arrears, and that the prayer for recovery of possession could not, therefore, be allowed. Subsequently, Gopala Menon asked for eviction of Ramachandra Prabhu and his subtenants on the ground that under S.7-A of the Madras Rent Control Act, XXV of 1949 as amended by Act VIII of 1951 Ramachandra Prabhu and his sublessees were not entitled to contest his petition as they had not deposited the arrears of rent and future rent at the agreed rate after the petition was filed and that, therefore, he should be put in possession of the building. The Rent Controller allowed this petition and passed an order directing Ramachandra Prabhu and his subtenants to put Gopala Menon in possession of the building. Against this order, Ramachandra Prabhu filed an appeal in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar, Kozhikode. That appeal was dismissed by the subordinate Judge on the 4th August 1953. From the appellate order of the learned Subordinate Judge he then preferred a Civil Revision Petition in the Court of the District Judge of South Malabar, but that Civil Revision Petition also was dismissed by the District Judge on the 15th of April 1954. Thereupon, Ramachandra Prabhu has filed this Civil revision petition to revise the orders of the Rent Controller, the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge.

(2.) Counsel for both sides agreed before me that the case is governed by S.7-A, clauses (1), (3) and 4 of the Madras Act, XXV of 1949, as amended by Act VIII of 1951 which reads as follows:-

(3.) The contentions of the revision petitioner here were (1) that as the enhancement of the rent on the 1st June 1951 was illegal, the excess-rent paid by him during June 1951 to February, 1952 should be adjusted against the arrears of rent payable for the period after February 1952 and that on such adjustment there would be no arrears for him to pay or deposit as required by S.7-A (1); (2) in any case, as there was a dispute between the tenant and the landlord as to whether there were arrears and what was the rate of rent to be paid the tenant was not bound to make the payment or deposit as per S.7-A (1) till the rent controller had passed an order under S.7-A (3) determining summarily the rent to be paid or deposited by him and since no such order was passed in this case he was not bound to and could not make the payment or deposit under S.7-A (1); and (3) even if he was bound to make any payment or deposit under S.7-A (1) and had defaulted in that matter, this Court should condone his default and allow him to make the payment or deposit, and continue the contest in the Rent Control Case.