The main legal point established in the judgment is the continuity of the landlord-tenant relationship beyond the contractual period and the influence of statutory tenancy on rent obligations.

1. The defendant in a suit for arrears of rent and accounts is the appellant. The suit was decreed by both the courts. The claim for arrears is in respect of a building which had been let out to the defendant by the plaintiff under Ext. Al indenture of lease dated 25-3-1955. The lease provided for a period of 10 years subject to renewal for another period of 10 years. The rent payable for the first period was at Rs. 3.000/-per year and for the subsequent period at Rs. 3.600/- per year. The tenant continued in occupation of the building for both the periods and subsequently. The second period expired on 30-6-1975. On 31-8-1975 proceedings were initiated under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 for eviction of the tenant on the grounds postulated under S.11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv). The claim for eviction on the ground

of arrears of rent was not pressed before the Rent Control Court. That court ordered eviction under S.11(4)(iv). That order was confirmed finally by the Supreme Court. The appellant-tenant vacated the premises on 18-8-1980. The present suit was instituted on 31-10-1978 claiming arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 1,696.25 per month from 1-9-1975 to 31-3-1977 and Rs. 2,875/- per month from 31-3-1977 to 31-8-1978. The claim is based on what is alleged to be due from the tenant in terms of S.8(2)(a) of the Act. The contention of the plaintiff has been that the contractual tenancy expired by efflux of time on 30-6-1975, subject to an additional period of two months as provided under the contract, and accordingly the defendant became liable to pay rent in terms of S.8(2)(a) instead of the rent agreed to be paid under the contract. This contention was accepted by both the courts. The courts construed the provisions of S.8 and came to the conclusion that, for the period of occupation by the tenant subsequent to the expiry of the contractual tenancy, the rent which was payable was not what had been stipulated under the contract, but an amount which, the courts held, the plaintiff was entitled to calculate with reference to the municipal assessment. The amounts claimed by the plaintiff, the courts found, were so calculated.

2. Counsel for the appellant Shri. T. S. Venkataswara Iyer contends that the courts wrongly construed S.8(2), and failed to appreciate correctly the legal nature of the relationship between the parties.

3. S.8, in so far as it is material, reads:

"8. Landlord not to claim or receive anything in excess of fair rent or agreed rent.- (1) Where the Rent Control Gouri has determined the fair rent of a building:

(a) the landlord shall not claim, receive or stipulate for the payment of anything in excess of such fair rent:

This sub-section has application only where a fair rent has been determined. In a case, such as the present, where no fair rent has been determined for the period in question, it is sub-s. (2) that would apply. That sub-section reads:

"(2) Where the fair rant of a building has not been determined under S.5

(a) notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, the rent payable for the building in case it is a building falling under clause (i) or clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-s. (2) of S.5 shall be, where the property tax or house tax has been fixed by the local authority, the maximum rent that may be fixed by the Rent Control Court as provided for in sub-s (2) of S.5 or the agreed rent whichever is less, and in cases where no property tax or house tax has been fixed for the building or where it has been fixed not on a rental basis, the agreed rent;

(b) It

S. 5 is the provision under which fair rent is determined. It is to sub-s. (2) of that Section that reference is made under S.8(2). S.5(2) concerns a building for which property tax or house tax has been fixed, and it is in accordance with that sub-section that fair rent has to be determined in respect of such a building. The maximum fair rent which can be fixed under S.5(2) is 15 per cent in excess of the monthly re