Judgment

ALAGIRISWAMI, J. (For himself and on behalf of A. N. Ray, C. J. and H. R. Khanna, J.):- The appellants are the tenants of a property bearing door Nos. 16 and 17 of the Poonamallee High Road in the city of Madras. They became tenants of this building in May 1929 when the property was with one of the predecessors in title of the present landlords, who are the respondents in these appeals. Though the appellants became tenants in 1929 a registered lease deed came into existence only in 1935 under which the lease was to run upto 1-5-1969. The lessee was entitled to renewal on the same terms and conditions for another period of fifteen years. The monthly rent agreed upon was Rs.225/- and a sum of Rs.235/- was payable as an annual contribution towards repairs and Rs.220/- towards public charges and taxes. In 1949 the parties mutually agreed that the tenants were to pay a 25 per cent increase in rent and also certain other amounts. The present landlords purchased the property in 1962 and soon after filed an application under Section 4 of the Madras (Now Tamil Nadu) Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for fixation of fair rent. Thereupon the tenants filed Writ Petition No. 1124 of 1963 seeking to restrain the landlords from proceeding with that petition. The learned single Judge who heard the petition felt that in view of a long series of decisions of Madras High Court under the various Rent Control Acts in force in Madras that they applied also to contractual tenancies in the matter of payment of rent as well as eviction, the matter should be considered by a Full Bench in view of the decisions of this Court in Rent Control cases from certain other States.

2. The Full Bench after an elaborate consideration came to the conclusion that the Act controls both contractual as well as statutory tenancies. that it is a complete code, and enables both landlords and tenants to seek the benefit of fixation of fair rent, whether a contractual tenancy prevails or it has been determined. Thereafter the matter again came up before the same learned single Judge who, applying the provisions of the Act to the facts of the case held that the Act did not apply to the premises in question. On appeal by the landlords a Division Bench of the High Court held that the premises were not exempted from the provisions of the Act and the Rent Controller has therefore jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of on merits the application for fixation of fair rent filed by the landlords. These two appeals are against the judgments of the Full Bench (reported in 1966-2 Mad LJ 68 (FB)) and the Division Bench respectively.

3. Before we go further into a discussion of the questions that arise it is necessary to look into certain relevant provisions of the Act.

4. Clause (6) of Section 2 of the Act defines landlord thus:

""Landlord" includes the person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the building were let to a tenant;"

5. Clause 8, in so far as it is relevant, defines tenant as follows:

""tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter, or the legal representative of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant s family up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour......"

6. Section 4 provides for an application for fixation of a fair rent by the tenant as well as the landlord. The fair rent for any residential building is to be six per cent gross return per annum on the total cost of the building if it is residential and nine per cent if it is non-residential. The total cost has to be calcula