I J COHEN Vs. SEHOTTINGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case I am sorry for Mr. Hottinger. I am afraid it is quite impossible for me to do anything to assist him and I am brand to say that his difficulties are due to the rather reckless method in which he has managed this part of his affairs. He was a tenant under an agreement for a year to Mr. Cohen before the Rent Act came into force, and in May 1920, that period had expired, and be was holding over as a monthly tenant upon the terms of the original agreement. The terms of the original agreement are, rent at Rs. 70, payable, as I understand, in advance on the 1 day of each month.

(2.) The Rent Act came into force on the 5 May 1920 and Mr. Hottinger appears to have paid the contractual rent in fall for the month of May. After that he made up his mind to pay the amount of rent allowable under the Rent Act and no more. Prima facie under the Rant Act [see Section 2(1)] the amount of rent allowed would be the amount that was paid for the premises on the 1 day of November 1918 plus 10 per cent. He made enquiries and he was of opinion that the amount was only Rs. 55 and he proceeded to pay into the hands of the Kent Controller certain sums of money amounting to Rs. 60-8 each month. He sent this on the 7th August in respect of the month of July, on the 6 September in respect of the month of August, on the 13 October in respect of the month of September, on the 8 November in respect of October 1920.

(3.) The landlord, Mr. Cohen, on the 13 August gave him notice to vacate on the 30th September 1920 and on the 6 October 1920 instituted a suit for eviction in the Small Cause Court. In the meantime proceedings were pending before the Rent Controller for the fixing of the standard rent. There was a contest about what the standard rent should be, and it has bean ultimately determined as Rs. 77.