KRISHNA RAO Vs. WAMAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order of the Third Additional District Judge, Indore, passed in proceedings for the fixation of fair rent under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) The non applicant was a tenant of the applicant landlord in respect of a portion of premises, house No. 2, Kachhi Mohalla, Indore City. On 1-6-1956, he filed a suit before the appropriate Rent Controlling Authority for the fixation of fair rent under Sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the Act. The applicant-landlord, however, had already served him with a notice to quit and determine his tenancy as from 1-6-1956. As the non-applicant (tenant did not vacate the premises in terms of the notice, he also filed a civil suit for ejectment on 246-1956, wherein he also claimed damages for use and occupation of the accommodation for the period that the non-applicant would continue to be in its occupation after the determination of his tenancy The suit for ejectment was decreed in favour of the applicant (landlord) on 3-2-1958, wherein be was also awarded damages for use and occupation from 1-6-1956 to the date of the landlord obtaining possession of the accommodation. The non-applicant in consequence vacated the suit premises by the end of January 1958 and also deposited in Court the entire amount of mesne profits and costs awarded against him by the aforesaid decree.

(3.) On 13-3-1959, the applicant (landlord) filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority in proceedings pending against him for the fixation of fair rent under Sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the Act praying that on the determination of the non-applicant's tenancy as from 1-6-1956 by the decree for ejectment, the proceedings before it became in fructuous and might be dismissed as such. The rent Controlling Authority agreed with the contention of the applicant (landlord) and dismissed the non-applicant's suit as in fructuous. Against the aforesaid dismissal, the non-applicant (tenant) went up in appeal to the Court of the District Judge, Indore, under Section 12 of the Act on the ground that he had continued in possession of the premises in question till 22-3-1959 and was, therefore, liable to pay rent or mesne profits till that date, so that he had continued to be a tenant within the meaning of the Act till that date and was consequently entitled to get a fair rent determined in the suit by him, which could not be dismissed as infructuous. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Rent Controlling Authority, inter alia, holding-