KASTURCHAND Vs. SIREKUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal arising out of a proceeding under the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. While a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was pending against the appellant-tenant, he made an application before the Rent Controlling Authority for fixing standard rent. The Rent controlling Authority fixed rent under section 7 of the Act at Rs. 5-40 P. per month. Against that order, there was an appeal before the Additional district Judge, who came to the conclusion that the provisions of section 7 were inapplicable to the case and it was really governed by section 10 (4) of the Act, but the tenant had not supplied any evidence on the basis of which rent could be fixed under section 10 (4) of the Act. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the tenant's application for fixation of standard rent. Against that order, the present second appeal has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel, appearing for the respondent, has contended that in the meanwhile the civil Court has already passed a decree for arrears of rent and ejectment against the tenant; that the defendant has also been ejected from the suit accommodation and that the decree for arrears of rent has already been realised. His contention, therefore, is that the proceedings for fixation of standard rent have become infructuous.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the proceedings cannot be said to have become infructuous because the decree which had been passed against the appellant was on the basis of agreed rent and if the standard rent is now fixed, he will be liable to pay only the standard rent for that period for which the decree has been passed and consequently these proceedings should continue to a logical conclusion.