M KASIM KHALEELI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord in the revision petitioner. The landlord filed an application under S. 4 of Act 18 of 1960 for the fixation of fair rent in respect of a non-residential building. The respondent tenant is the State of Madras, represented by the Accommodation Controllers.

(2.) The landlord in his petition wanted a rent of Rs. 32,500 to be fixed as the fair rent for the building. This application was resisted by the respondent and after recording evidence the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.28,000 per month. Aggrieved by this order, both parties preferred appeals, the landlord filing an appeal in H.R.A. No. 483 of 1978. Unfortunately, both the appeals were lying before different Courts and this was not brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority by either party. Therefore, the two appeals were heard separately by different authorities and judgments were rendered. In the appeal filed by the tenant in H.R.A. No. 483 of 1978, the fair rent was confirmed at Rs. 28,000 per month and consequently the appeal was dismissed on 5-12-1978. Subsequently on 12-12-1978, the appeal filed by the landlord was taken up by a different Judge and in that H.R.A. No. 521 of 1978 the Appellate Authority has passed the order thus- "The appeal is accordingly allowed........ Fair rent is fixed at Rs. 21,945 per month". This operative portion of the order reducing the quantum is understandable and is not in conformity with reason or propriety. Be that as it may, there are now conflicting decisions with regard to the fair rent in respect of the same premises between the same parties.

(3.) As pointed out already, the Appellate Authority in H.R.A. No. 483 of 1978 confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller and fixed the fair rent at Rupees 28,000 per month. This has become final. While so, in other appellate authority in H.R.A. No. 521 of 1978 has fixed the fair rent at Rs. 21,943 per month for the same premises and passed the order on 12-12-1978, subsequent to the decision in H.R.A. No. 483 of 1978. These two orders are mutually contradictory and irreconcilable. This is also an act of impropriety and also illegality warranting interference of this Court under S. 25 of Act 18 of 1960.