MOHAMMED AEJAZ AHMED Vs. VIGARUDDIN AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision directed against the order of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, acting as the appellate authority in Rent Control Proceedings. The landlord is the petitioner before me. It is stated that the premises containing 15 rooms had been given to the respondent on a rental of Rs. 300. The tenant applied to the Rent Controller for the fixation of fair rent urging that the former tenant, which was the Abkari Department, was only paying a sum of Rs. 190 as rent for 16 rooms and that, therefore, the rent of Rs. 300 was excessive. The Rent Controller after going into the matter assessed the fair rentat Rs.178 basing it on the fact that the Abkari Department was paying only Rs. 190 for 16 rooms and one of these 16 rooms was let out to another party. The landlord being aggrieved by this order appealed to the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, who agreed with the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. The landlord has come up in revision.

(2.) The point that is now taken on behalf of the landlord is that when the proceedings were pending before the Rent Controller the tenant had left the premises and therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased thereafter and as such the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to adjudicate about the matter that was pending before him. I do not think that this argument could be accepted. At the time when the application for the fixation of fair rent was filed before the Rent Controller, the respondent was a tenant in the premises and what he has decided is only in respect of the rent that was payable during the period that the tenant was in occupation of the premises. The Rent Controller, it must be stated, was not adjudicating or giving a decision with regard to the fair i-ent for a period when the tenant ceased to occupy the premises. In my opinion, the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to fix the amount of fair rent for the period during which the respondent was a tenant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to a decision of a Bench of the Hyderabad High Court in C.R.P. No. 275/4 of 1955 decided on the 16th of January, 1956, wherein the learned Judges held that once the relationship of the landlord and tenant ceased, the Rent Controller ceased to have jurisdiction to pass any order and any order passed by the Rent Controller directing the refund of the excess rent was beyond nis jurisdiction. The view that I take of the matter is that if it is in respect of the rent payable during the period when the tenancy was subsisting, the Rent Controller has jurisdiction. As there is a Bench decision of the High Court of Hyderabad holding a contrary view, I think the matter should be considered by a Bench. The case be placed before a Bench.