SAKUNTALA RAJAPPA Vs. K KAMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. K. Kamala, the tenant-respondent herein filed an application, HRC No. 2067 of 1969, out of which this civil revision petition arises against Mrs. Sakuntala rajappa, the petitioner herein, under Section 8 (5) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960), before the Rent Controller for permission for depositing into the tribunal the rents for two months at the rate of Rs. 175 per month in respect of the premises demised viz, the building bearing door No. 164-C llyods Road, Madras; and it was contended by the respondent that the monthly rental was Rs. 175 only, that the electricity and water charges, which she had agreed to bear separately, did not form part of the monthly rent stipulated, that as the petitioner would not give regular supply of water from 1-5-1969, the respondent had made alternative arrangements and was not liable to pay water charges any more and that, as the petitioner refused to receive the rent of Rs. 175, the respondent was entitled to deposit the monthly rent into the tribunal.

(2.) THE application for deposit of rents was resisted by the petitioner substantially on two grounds. The first is that the monthly rent was Rs. 275, Rs. 175 for rent for the premises and Rs. 100 for amenities. As the total rent was over Rs. 250 per month, the premises was exempt from the operation of the Rent Control Act and as such the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the application by virtue of the provisions of Section 30 (ii) of the Rent Control Act. The amenities agreed to be provided under the agreement of lease included not only water but also water closet, wash basin, supercem coating, mosaic flooring, compound wall, extra electric fans, power plugs, shower etc. In the second place it is contended that, as the building had been constructed after the commencement of the Act, in 1964, the Rent Controller is barred from deciding the matter under Section 30 (i) of the Act.

(3.) THE Rent Controller upheld the petitioner's contention that the building was constructed after 1960, that the monthly rent was Rs. 275 and that the building was therefore exempted from the operation of the Act. The Appellate authority took a different view on both the points and accordingly allowed the application filed by the respondent.