Amount paid as consideration of tenancy.

Mrs. K. Kamala the tenant-respondent herein filed an application H.R.C. No. 2067 of 1969 out of which this civil revision petition arises against Mrs. Sakuntala Rajappa, the petitioner herein, under section 8 (5) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, before the Rent Controller for permission for depositing into the Tribunal the rents for two months at the rate of Rs. 175 per month in respect of the premises demised, viz., the building bearing door No. 164-C in Lloyds Road, Madras; and it was contended by the respondent that the monthly rental was Rs. 175 only, that the electricity and water charges, which she had agreed to bear separately, did not form part of the monthly rent stipulated, that as the petitioner would not give regular supply of water from 1st May, 1969, the respondent had made alternative arrangements and was not liable to pay water charges any more and that, as the petitioner refused to receive the rent of Rs. 175, the respondent was entitled to deposit the monthly rent into the Tribunal.

2. The application for deposit of rents was resisted by the petitioner substantially on two grounds. The first is that the monthly rent was Rs. 275, Rs. 175 for rent for the premises and Rs. 100 for amenities. As the total rent was over Rs. 25o per month, the premises was exempt from the operation of the Rent Control Act and as such the rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the application by virtue of the provisions of section 30 (ii) of the Rent Control Act. The amenities agreed to be provided under the agreement of lease included not only water but also water closet, wash basin, supercem coating, mosaic flooring, compound wall, extra electric fans, power plugs, shower etc. In the second place it is contended that, as the building had been constructed after the commencement of the Act in 1964, the Rent Controller is barred from deciding the matter under section 30 (i) of the Act.

3. The Rent Controller upheld the petitioner’s contention that the building was constructed after 1960, that the monthly rent was Rs. 275 and that the building was therefore exempted from the operation of the Act. The Appellate Authority took a different view on both the points and accordingly allowed the application filed by the respondent.

4. The two contentions which are urged before the Tribunals below are the subject-matter of this revision. On the question whether the building was constructed after the year i960, it appears to me clear that the petitioner has no case whatsoever. Section 30 of the Act provides that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to any building the construction of which was, after the date of the commencement of this Act, completed and notified to the local authority concerned. The section implies that the construction must have been completed after the date of the commencement of the Act and that the construction must be notified to the local authority concerned. The petitioner’s husband R.W.1 has deposed that the building was constructed after 1960 and relies on Exhibit R-3 the sanctioned plan and Exhibit R-4 a permit issued by the Corporation of Madras on 30th July, 1964 to put up the construction envisaged by the sanctioned plan Exhibit R-3. Exhibit R-3 is a plan dated 29th November, 1962 and purports to show the proposed additions and alterations in premises No. 164, Lloyds Road, Royapettah. The building let out to the respondent-tenant, on the other hand, bears door No. 164-C; and it is not clear from the evidence on record that the building No. 164-C which has been demised to the respondent is the addition proposed by the plan Exhibit R-3. The plan admittedly refers to the bigger premises bearing No. 164, Lloyds Road and shows the constructions which are proposed to be retained and the additions and alterations to be made as indicated by the red line. Section.30 (i) contemplates the construction of a new building; and it is not clear from the evidence that the p