RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) IN these two revision petitions filed by the tenant, Sri K. V. Reddy, learned counsel, urges that infixing the fair rent, the Rent Controller has not arrived at or ascertained the rental value of the building as entered in the Property Tax Assessment Book of the concerned Local Authority during the Period of 12 months prior to 5-4-1944 and that there being no basis for an increase on the rent to be so ascertained, the order passed by him fixing the fair rent at Rs. 125/- for each of the Mulgies is bad in law. The rental value of the Mulgies assessed in Exs. A. 8 and A, 9 and relied upon by the tenant does not relate to the period of 12 months prior to 5. 4. 1944 but relates to the year 1976-77. No evidence was either let in by the tenant as to the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the period of 12 months prior to 5. 4. 1944. In other words, no evidence of the first two circumstances enumerated in clause (2) of sec. 4 of the Act to be taken into consideratiou by the rent Controller was adduced by the tenant. Necessarily the Rent Controller took into account the other relevant circumstances of the case including the amount paid by the tenant by way of premium in addition to the agreed rent after 5. 4. 1944 as envisaged in clause (c) of Sub-section 2 of Section 4 of the Act. Admittedly, after the tenant obtained delivery of possession of the Mulgies through court, he made a dep sit of Rs. 500/- by way of premium and was depositing a sum of Rs. 50/- every month towards rent for each of the Mulgies. It is also in the evidence of R. W. 2 and corroborated by Ex. B. 2, that Mulgies with similar accommodation and situate in the neighbour hood are fetching a monthly rent of Rs. 220/ -. Admittedly, the landlord incurred Rs. 10,000/- for effecting complete and full repairs to the mulgies. Roofing of the Mulgies with R. C. C. was laid. The flooring of the Mulgies with cement was carried out. There was an increase in the area of the Mulgies. All these facts were taken into consideration by the Rent controller in fixing the fair rent. The fixation of the fair rent does not in any way contravene the provisions of clause 4 of Sec. 4 of the Act.

( 2 ) IT is next submitted by Sri K. V. Reddy, relying upon the decision in Syed Ycusuf Ali vs. Abbas Ali Joomabhai Saheb rendered by Gopal rao Ekbote, J. that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to fix the date of commencement of payment of the fair rent determined by him. In Rajammal vs. Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes Madras and another (Division Bench)- it was held by a Division Bench of the Madras high Court that where fair rent was fixed under sec. 4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the landlord was not entitled to such fair rent when it was in excess of the rent which was being paid before such fixation from the date of the commencement of the Act but only from the date of application for fixing the fair rent. In George Oakes vs. Chief Judge, Small Causes Court Viswanath sastri, J, in a separate judgment observed :"where the fair rent fixed under Sec, 4 of the Madras Act is in excess of the rent which was being paid before such date, the landlord cannot claim the difference from any date anterior to the date of filing the application u/s 4". In Hari Rowji vs. Malabar District Board Chandra Reddy, J (as he then was) held that the jurisdiction of the Rant Controller or the Appellate authority being only to declare the fair rent in respect of a particular building the landlord could claim the fair rent on the basis of that order from a date from which he was entitled under the Act i. e. from the date of his filling the application, the decisions referred to supra were cited before Gopal Rao Ekbote, j. (as he then was ). But the learned Judge distinguished the same without assigning any valid reasons, and held that it was for a civil court to decide as to from what date the fixation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document