The main legal point established in the judgment is that rent enhancement provisions in a lease arrangement become enforceable once the buildings are exempted from the Rent Control Act, and an acknowledgment of liability can extend the limitation period for a claim of arrears of rent.

1. Two points are raised in this revision by the defendant in a suit for arrears of rent in respect of two buildings in the Industrial Estate, Edakkal, owned by the Government of Kerala. The lease arrangement executed in February. 1962 was for two years and under paragraph (13) thereof the tenant had been given an option to renew it on fresh conditions stipulated by Government. In June, 1962 the management of the Industrial Estate was vested in the Kerala State Small Industries Corporation Ltd. In June, 1966 Government passed an order enhancing the rent by stages, to be effective from the 1st of August, 1966, 1967,1968 and 1969, for the purpose of progressively reaching the goal of "economic rent". Orders regarding the enhancement were communicated to the petitioner on 5-9 -1966, and he then filed R.C.O.P. Nos. 246 and 247 of 1967 (on 6-11- 67) under Act 2/65 for fixation of fair rent. While these petitions were pending, Government issued a notification under S 25 of Act 2/65 on 12- 6-68 exempting the Industrial Estate from its provisions. The fair rent proceedings were however continued, overruling the Corporation's objections based on the aforesaid notification, and an order was passed on 4-11-69 fixing the fair rent as Rs. 46/- p.m. The suit was filed by the Corporation on 11-6-71 for arrears of rent at the enhanced rates for the period before 6-11-67 and after 11-6-68, contending that the fair rent fixation would operate only during the period from the date of filing of the petitions to the date of the notification under S.25.

2. The trial court held that Government order of June, 1966 enhancing the rent was against the provisions of the Rent Control Act which were then applicable to the lease arrangement in question. The stipulation in the lease deed providing for enhancement of rent was therefore "void" As regards the 1968 notification exempting the buildings from the provisions of the Act, it was held that the order in R.C.O.P. Nos. 246 and 247 passed long after the notification, continued to be binding on the parties. It had not ceased to operate from 12-6-68, and the plaintiffs were also estopped from claiming anything more than the fair rent so fixed. The defendant's contention that the claim for arrears for the period beyond 3 years from the date of the plaint was barred by limitation was also accepted, over-ruling the plaintiff's plea that Ext. A9 letter of the defendant amounted to an acknowledgment of the liability.

3. On appeal by the Corporation, the learned Subordinate Judge felt that the fair rent fixation had ceased to have any force after the notification of 12th June, 1968 And as regards limitation, its view was that Ext. A9 dated 4-1-69 amounted to an acknowledgment of the liability within three years from August. 1966 i.e. the period from which arrears were being claimed. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the suit was decreed as prayed for.

4. It is difficult to accept the trial court's view that the provisions of paragraph (13) of the lease deed of 1962, which enabled enhancement of rent, were ab initio void and inoperative because Act 2/65 was then applicable to the Industrial Estate. The Act only forbids realisation of rent in excess of the fair rent so long as the building or the contract of lease is one coming within, its mischief. Its provisions operate on the contract to make unenforceable any claim for rent in excess of the fair rent, but it is a different thing to say that part of the contract which provided for enhancement of rent was stillborn or non est. The contract for payment of excess rent remains unenforceable during the period the statutory prohibition applies; it can operate once the prohibition is lifted. That means that after the lease arrangement was taken out of the statutory restriction by means of the notification dated 12-6-68, the plaintiff was entitled to claim the higher rate of rent stipulated.

5. As for the combined effect of the order dated 4-11-69 (fixing fai