HARI ROWJI GORE SASTRI Vs. MALABAR DISTRICT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in S. C. S. No. 138 of 1947 has filed this petition in revision against the decree and judgment of the District Munsiff of Calicut. This petition arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 129-8-0, being the arrears of rent at enhanced rate from 1-10-1946 to 2-7-1947. The plaintiff, who is the owner of two buildings in Calicut, let them out to the District Board at a rental of RS. 15 and Rs. 25 each. After the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XV [15] of 1946 came into force, he claimed enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 20 and Rs. 34 respectively from the District Board. The respondent District Board replied that they could not of their own accord agree to pay enhanced rate, but that if he so chose, he could move the Rent Controller for fixing the fair rent. Thereupon the plaintiff filed an application before the Rent Controller for fixing fair rents at the rate claimed by him, namely, Rs. 20 and Rs. 34 from 1-10-1946, the date on which the Act came into force. The answer given to that claim by the defendant was that they were agreeable to pay any enhanced rent that the Rent Controller might fix. The Rent Controller passed an order on 8-7-1947 fixing the fair rent as claimed by the plaintiff.

(2.) Subsequent to this order, the plaintiff-petitioner called upon the respondent District Board by notice dated 6-9-1947 to pay the rent at the enhanced rate from 1-10-1946 to which the District Board's reply was that the plaintiff was not entitled to the enhanced rate from 1-10-1946, but only from the date on which the order was passed by the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent. Thereupon the plaintiff filed the present suit which has given rise to this petition claiming enhanced rent from 1-10-1946 to 8-7-1947. The suit was contested by the District Board on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to enhanced rent from the date on which the Act came into force, but only from the date of the order fixing the fair rent. The trial Court, upholding the contention raised by the defendant, dismissed the suit. Hence the present revision petition.

(3.) In this petition it is contended by Mr. Ramakrishna Aiyar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the landlord is entitled to rent at the enhanced rate from the date of this petition. On the other hand, it is urged for the respondent, that the rent, fixed under the contract, should be deemed to be in force until it is varied by an order of the Court and, therefore, the plaintiff-petitioner would be entitled to enhanced rent only from the date on which the existing rent was varied by the order of the Rent Controller. I think the contention of the petitioner must prevail.