SITARAM SINGH Vs. B L SHORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for revising an order dated 26 September 19 4 whereby the District Judge, Jabalpur, dismissed the applicant's appeal under section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) against an order fixing reasonable rent under section 9 (4) of that Act.

(2.) IT is common ground that the applicant owns house No. 1571 of wright Town, Jabalpur, and that the non-applicant occupied it as a tenant in return for Rs. 40 as monthly rent. By a notice to quit dated 30 January 1961, which was duly served on the non-applicant, the tenancy was determined with effect from 28 February 1961. Thereupon, on 1 March 1961, the applicant filed Civil Suit No. 96-A of 1961 for ejectment founded on some of the grounds mentioned in section 4 of that Act and also for arrears of rent and mesne profits. On 4 September 1961, the Court of first instance passed against the non-applicant a decree for ejectment, arrears of rent up to the end of February 1951 and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 40 per month from the date of institution of the suit. Two successive appeals filed by the non-applicant were dismissed on 16th October 1961 and 13th March 1962 respectively. In the meantime, on 8th March 1961, the non-applicant filed a suit under section 9 (4) of the Act for fixation of reasonable rent. That suit was contested inter alia on the ground that, since the tenancy had been terminated with effect from the end of February 1961, the Rent Controlling Authority had no jurisdiction to fix reasonable rent. That Authority overruled the contention and, by its order dated 30th November 1961, fixed for the house Rs. 20.74 as reasonable monthly rent. As already indicated, the appeal filed against that order was dismissed.

(3.) BEFORE closing, I would like to observe that, in a case like this, the Rent Controlling Authority should stay its proceedings until the decision of the previously instituted ejectment suit which would decide conclusively whe- ther, at the relevant time, the tenancy did or did not subsist.