The fair rent fixed in 1946 between the landlady and a different tenant was not binding on the petitioner. The petitioner was obliged to file a fresh fair rent petition before seeking a refund of the alleged excess rent. The petitioner could not claim a refund for 11 years but could only get a refund for a period of 6 months from the date of filing of such a fresh petition for fair rent. The Rent Controller did not have the jurisdiction to pass a money decree for the refund of excess rent. The petitioner should have filed a regular civil suit for the recovery of the excess rent.

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) CAN pre-1945 rent of Rs. 165/-P. M. be fixed as fair rent to-day and can the tenant get a refund of rent for 11 years backwards (from 1963 to 1974) in spite of statutory changes and improvement to the building, is the main question in this C. R. P. If this plea of the petitioner tenant is to be accepted, the respondent-landlady will have to refund Rs. 31,490/- towards arrears and, in fact, the petitioner -tenant wanted to attach and take back even the rent of rs. 165/- P. M. he has been depositing since 1974 - leaving the landlady with "no rent" at all for the last 14 years (from 1974 to 1978 ). (During this very period, the petitioner-tenant collected rent upto Rs. 950/-P. M. from the sub-tenant ). It might appear strange but that in fact, is the plea of the petitioner-tenant in this case.

( 2 ) THE tenant filed the h. R. C. No. 133/74 for refund of a sum of Rs. 31,490/- being the alleged excess rent paid for over 11 years from 9-9-1963 to 9-11-1974 at the rate of rs. 235/- P. M. The trial Court passed a decree for Rs. 31,490/- in favour of the tenant but the same was set aside by the appellate Court.

( 3 ) THE petitioner became a tenant under a registered lease deed, Ex. B-2, dated 9. 9. 1963 agreeing to pay rent at Rs. 400/- p. M. He contends that one Amir ali was a tenant in 1945 and the then Rent Controller had fixed a fair rent of Rs. 165/- P. M. in a petition filed by the land-lady, and that the same fair rent is to be applied for all time to come as a judgment in rem . It is the petitioner s case that the land-lady played fraud and suppressed the above fact when the lease was granted on 9. 9. 1963. It is important to note that the tenant who entered into a registered lease on 9. 9. 1963 agreeing to pay rent at rs. 400/- P. M. has not prayed for fixation of "fair rent" afresh and reduction of the agreed rent. In fact, it is contended that no fresh fair rent petition need be filed and that he could simply take advantage of the earlier order dated 23. 7. 1946 fixing fair rent at Rs. 165/- p. M. It is also argued that there is no period of limitation for seeking refund and that the tenant need not go to a civil court for claiming refund but seek refund before the Rent controller by filing a petition.

( 4 ) THE trial Court came to the conclusion that the fair rent once fixed in 1946 as rs. 165/- P. M. was applicable for all time, that even though as recited in an earlier document, ex. B-1, dated 21. 7. 1963 the name of the previous tenant Amir Ali was disclosed to the tenant still the land-lady did not inform the petitioner-tenant about the fixation of fair rent at Rs. 165/- P. M. in H. R. C. No. 49/45 on 23. 7. 1946 and that irrespective of any fraud, the petitioner was entitled to recover the entire excess rent paid (Rs. 400/- minus Rs. 165/- = rs. 235/- p. m.) between 9. 9. 1963 and 9. 11. 1974 amounting to rs. 31,490/- for 11 year backwards. He also held that the recovery could be directed by the Rent Controller and that the tenant need not go to a Civil court.

( 5 ) ON appeal, however, the appellate authority held that the tenant should have filed a civil suit for recovery of money and that the Rent Controller could not grant a money decree to the tenant. It allowed the appeal and dismissed the H. R. C. No. 133/74. It is against this order that the tenant has preferred this revision petition.

( 6 ) IN this revision, , it is contended by Sri V. Sreerama murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the tenant can straightaway recover these monies under S. 7 (l) (b) through the Rent Controller s Court and that it is not necessary to file a civil suit. A C. M. P. was also filed to attach the subsequent rents deposited at the rate of rs. 165 pm from 1974 into Court but the same has been dismissed by me earlier inasmuch as it would amount to the landlady not getting even this paltry sum of rs. 165/- P. M. Since 1974 upto- date.

( 7 ) IT is contended for the landlady s heirs (respondents) b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document