G A GAFFAR KHAN Vs. M A KALEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this Second Appeal is whether a civil suit can lie for the refund of the excess amount paid to the landlord by a tenant after the fair rent is fixed under the Rent Act. It arises in the following circumstances. The respondent is the owner of House No. 61-A, Pensioners' Line, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. The plaintiff-appellant is a tenant therein. The landlord' purchased the said house in the month of February, 1956 and had been collecting rents from 1st March, 1956 from the plaintiff-tenant at Rs. 20 per month. The plaintiff thought that the rent is exorbitant and he therefore approached the Rent Controller at Secunderabad Cantonment for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller after a proper enquiry passed an order on 7th January, 1959 under which he fixed fair rent of Rs. 15 per month. The plaintiff-tenant instituted the present suit for the refund of the amount paid to the landlord-defendant between 1st March, 1956 and 1st January, 1959.

(2.) The defendant-landlord's main objection to the suit was that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. His contention was that the Rent Controller alone has the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff. Upon these pleadings the trial Court framed appropriate issues. While the plaintiff examined himself and marked two exhibits, the defendant-landlord did not produce any evidence, either oral or documentary. On this material the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad decreed that plaintiff's suit negativing the contentions raised by the defendant.

(3.) The defendant therefore preferred an appeal to the Chief Judgr, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The learned Judge by his judgment dated 21st November, 1961 allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It was held that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit and that the proper course for the tenant was to move the Rent Controller to give necessary direction under section 7 (c) of the Secunderabad and Aurangabad Cantonment House Rent Control Act of 1949 and not to institute a suit for the recovery of any excess amount paid. It is this view that is now questioned in this Second Appeal.