COLLECTOR OF MADRAS Vs. G LOGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is against the order of the Court of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras and Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in M.P.No. 1646 of 198! in H.R.A.No.530 of 1981. THE tenant is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE respondent herein is the owner of the petition-scheduled residential premises and the petitioner herein is a statutory tenant under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act. THE respondent-landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller, Madras, under section 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent. THE Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.662 per month payable from the date of the commencement of the original tenancy subject to the law of limitation. Aggrieved thereby the tenant revision petitioner, who is the Collector of Madras, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority in H.R.A.No.530 of 1981. THE Appellate Authority fixed the fair rent at Rs.500 per month, to be given effect from the date of the application. THEreupon- the tenant filed M.P.No. 1646 of 1981 before the Appellate Authority for review of the order. He contended that as per the Bench decision of this Court rendered in THE State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Accommodation Controller v. K.N.Danasekar, (1980) 93 L.W.207, the fair rent fixed under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in respect of a building taken over by the Government shall become effective from the date of the commencement of the original tenancy itself subject to the law of limitation, the order of the Appellate Authority directing payment of the fair rent from the date of the application is a mistake and prayed for review of the appellate order and to direct the fair rent to be paid from the date of commencement of the tenancy subject to the law of limitation in accordance with the aforesaid Bench decision. THE application was resisted by the tenant, but the learned Appellate Authority allowed the application. Hence this revision by the tenant.