FRANK HAYDEN Vs. M. LAKSHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the Judgment in S.C.S. No. 100/1 of 1957 on the file of the District and Sessions judge, Secunderabad, at the instance of the defendant in the suit. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of house No. 49-A, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad, which, according to him, the petitioner bad taken on a monthly rent of H.S. Rs. 30. Fair rent was fixed finally at the rate of Rs. 20 by the District Court on 11th December, 1956 and the respondent, after giving credit to the amounts paid, filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 504-9-3.

(2.) The defence of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner filed an application for fixation of fair rent before the Rent Controller on 10th December, 1953. By an order dated 8th March, 1954, fair rent was fixed at Rs. 13 by the Rent Controller. On appeal taken to the District Court, it fixed the fair rent at Rs. 14-4-0 by an order dated 22nd September, 1954. The matter was taken up in revision to the High Court which remanded the case to the Controller for fresh enquiry. After remand the Controller by an order dated 8th October, 1956 fixed the fair rent at Rs. 14. On further appeal to the District Court, the said Court fixed the fair rental Rs. 20 by its order dated 11th December, 1956. As and when fair rent was being fixed either by the Controller or by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner was making remittances of the rent by money order at the respective rates fixed by the concerned authority and according to him, he deposited the balance due into the Court along with the written statement. His contention is that the lawful rent payable by him would be the rate fixed by the Controller until it has been altered by the Appellate Authority and if this view were to be accepted the deposit made by him will represent the balance of the rent payable by him. This view did not find favour with the lower Court. The lower Court held applying the provisions of the Proviso to section 12(1)(b) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, (XX of 1954) as amended by Act (XLI of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that the amount sued for represented accurately the amount due and passed a decree. It is against this decree and judgment that the defendant has preferred the above Civil Revision Petition to this Court.

(3.) In this connection, it may be useful to extract the relevant provisions of section 12 of the Act.