KUNJLAL Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that falls for determination in this case is as to whether a compromise between the parties arrived at in a civil court would serve as estoppel from getting the fair rent fixed by the Controller under Section 8 of the J&K Houses & Shops Rent Control Act (hereafter called the Act).

(2.) THE facts in brief are that respondent, Madan Lal, is the tenant of a shop owned by the petitioners. During an earlier civil proceeding in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, the parties entered into a compromise and an amount of Rs. 2400/- was agreed to be paid as monthly rent. The respondent approached the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent in accordance with Section 8 of the Act. The Rent Controller (C.J.M.) Jammu dismissed the application on the ground that the agreement executed between the parties before the Civil Court on 13.12.1989 estops the respondent from challenging the rent. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on 30.4.1994. Against this order an appeal was preferred before the District Judge, Jammu, who vide his order dated 15.4.1995, allowed the same and set aside the order of the Controller, directing him to fix fair rent under Section 8 of the Act. It is this order which has been called in question in the present revision petition.

(3.) IN the present case what the Controller has held to serve as estoppel for the respondent was an agreement arrived at by the parties in a civil proceeding, independent of the Act. That makes the whole difference.