INDERMULL LONIYA Vs. SUBORDINATE JUDGE, SECUNDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for the issue writ of certiorari filed in December 1953 which the advent of the Hyderabad House (Rent, Ex and Lease) Control Act, 1954, was converted revision petition. The facts out of which this party arises date as far back as the year 1942. The respondents represent the firm known as "The Secunderabad Commercial and Banking Company", and, other things, they carry on cinema business. The petitioner Sait Indermul Lonyia is a lessee of the premises No. 8573, Distillery Road, Secunderabad which had taken from the trustees Srikishen Gopikishen May, 1940, and was running a cinema therein.

(2.) LATER on, however, this was clarified on 22nd November 1952 in a fresh counter filed with the person of the Court. The Rent Controller rejected plea on the ground that the amendment was reactive and not retrospective and fixed Rs. 800 is the fair rent for the premises inclusive of furniture and cinema equipment. Both the parties filed their appeals before the Appellate Authority. The rent fixed was further reduced to Rs. 600 per month by the said Authority. Aggrieved by this, Indurmul has come up to this Court.

(3.) I will first take up the question of estoppel. The facts relevant to these contentions have been set out at length in the earlier part of the judgment. It would appear that the respondents had stated at the very outset during the course of the eviction proceedings that the cinema equipment did not come within the definition of furniture to be covered by S. 2 of the Rent Controller Order. But the applicant insistently stated and finally succeeded in his plea that cinema equipment formed part of the furniture of the premises and the Rent Controller had jurisdiction. Consequently the respondents, at the peril of being evicted had to pay the rent and were obliged subsequently to apply for fixation of fair rent which was the only way out of what they thought an inequitable position. The question, therefore, is when the petitioner has thus driven him to seek remedy before the Rent Control Authority, can be be permitted to take an inconsistent position and dispute the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.