PANNALAL Vs. BHONREYLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against a decree passed by the learned Small Cause Court Judge, Alwar, dated 11-8-1951.

(2.) THE not-petitioners Bhonerylal and Ramdayal sued the petitioner Pannalal on 22-11-49 for payment of Rs. 200/-on the allegatins that the petitioner had taken a shop of the not-petitioners on rent on 26th Sept. , 1948, in the town of Alwar with a stipulation to pay was in occupation under the said agreement from 1-10-48 to 1-9-1949, and during this period paid only Rs. 130/- towards rent. THEy, therefore, claimed the balance of the rent under the agreement admitted the tenancy, and the agreement to pay Rs. 30/- p. m. , as also the period during which he was in occupation of the shop, but pleaded that the rent was excessive, and the landlord had later agreed to accept Rs. 10/- p. m. It was said that this was fair rent permissible under the Matsya Premises (Rent Control) Ordinance, 1948 (No. X of 1948), and the landlord was not entitied to any sum in excess of the rent at the aforesaid rate. THE said pleas were taken on 16th January, 1950. THE learned Small Cause Court Judge rejected the pleas of the defendant on the ground that he should have made an application to the Controller under sec. 6 of the Ordinance for fixation of a fair rent if he considered the rent to be exessive, and as he had not taken such proceeding the landlord was entitled to the rent at the stipulated rate. He accordingly decreed the claim. It may be nentioned that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 came into force some time in 1950, and the present suit will be governed by the provisions of the Matsya Premises (Rent Control) Ordinance. As held by this Court in Dugaparasad vs. Hiralal (1), a tenalt could only apply to the Rent Controller under the Matsya Ordinance it he was in occupation on the date of enforcement of the Ordinance on a rate of rent stipulated between the parties and there is a flesh agreement for enhancement of rent afterwards. In the present case the tenant came into occupation on 1st October,1948 on an agreement to pay Rs. 30/-p. m. , and the claim of the landlord is to enforce that agreement, and the case is not one where the rent may have been enhanced after the enforecment of the Matsya Ordinance. THE tenant, therefore, had, under the Matsya law, no remedy for fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller, if he considered the rent to be excessive. Nevertheless, sec. 4 provided a defence to the tenant in cse the landlord wanted to the enforce his agreement to pay rent in excess of the fair rent mentioned in that section. Sec. 4 laid sown that the rent should not be more than twice the rent payable for those premises or premises of a similar nature on the 1st day of January 1951, in the case of residential houses, and in the case of non-residential houses, the rent should not be more than 2-1/2 times the rent payable for those premises or premises of a similar nature on the 1st day of January, 1951. Any agreement contary to the provisions of sec. 4 would be one to which the provisions of sec. 23 of the Contract Act became applicable, and such an agreement is not enforceable. It is obvious that the agreement if countenanced will defeat the provision of the law made for the purpose of regulating rents and relieving tenants against the greed of landlords. THE lower court should have, thererore, gone into the plea of the defendant n the merits instead of rejecting the same of the ground that he should have got a fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller which remedy, as aforesaid, was not available to the defendant.