E B NAGARATNAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conviction of the petitioner was undoubtedly correct. An exchange of buildings by two persons inevitably involves the vacancies of both buildings. A vacates building A, B vacates building B then A occupies building B, and B occupies building A. The mere naming of such a double vacancy and double occupation as an exchange cannot alter the facts. So the petitioner was bound to notify the vacancy of the Rs. 35/- building to the Controller and take his permission to occupy it instead of quietly occupying it herself.

(2.) I have held already in two recent cases that "rent" under Section 3 (2) means the "actual rent" paid or payable, and not a "fair rent" when none has been fixed. Surely, a person receiving from another Rs. 35/- as rent in hard cash cannot be allowed to quibble and say that the actual rent will be much less. The rule that a person cannot approbate and reprobate or blow hot and cold in the same breath will apply here also.

(3.) So, I confirm the petitioner's conviction, but, in the peculiar circumstances, reduce the fine to Rs. 10/- or in default, simple imprisonment for a week. The excess fine, if paid, will be refunded.