RAMCHANDRA Vs. VINAYAK SANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 115 C.P.C. and Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the District Judge, Indore, holding that an appeal preferred by Ramchandra under Section 9 (3) of the Madhya Bharat Sthan Niyantrana Vidhan, 1950, was incompetent. The opponents after taking on rent certain premises belonging to the applicant, applied to the Rent Controller for the fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller fixed Rs. 28/8 as the fair rent. The landlord appealed to the District Judge under Section 9 (3), During the pendency of this appeal, he accepted from the tenant rent at the rate determined by the Rent Controller. The learned District Judge took the view that by accepting the rent, the landlord gave up his right to challenge the decision of the Rent Controller about the fixation of rent. Accordingly he held the appeal to be incompetent and rejected it.

(2.) THIS petition must be accepted. There is no warrant for the proposition that the moment a landlord or a tenant accepts or pays rent at a certain rate, his right to have fair rent determined under the Sthan Niyantrana Vidhan is lost. On the other hand, clauses (a) and (b) of sub -section (2) of Section 9 which enjoin the rent fixation authority to make a direction for the payment of interim rent to the landlord by the tenant during the pendency of the rent -fixation proceedings point to the fact that the acceptance by the landlord of any amount of rent or the payment of the rent by the tenant does not amount to a waiver of his right to have the fair rent determined. The decision of the learned District Judge proceeds on an altogether wrong -conception of ''fair rent'' and the proceedings for the determination of that rent.

(3.) I agree.