Bonafide dispute relating to an agreement for payment of enhanced rent.

This Revision Petition is under section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) and has been withdrawn to this Court for disposal along with S.A. No. 787 of 19651 as the two are connected. The second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, the claim being based on an agreement by the tenant to the increase of rent from Rs. 112.50 to Rs. 200 per month from Masi 1960. The tenant contended that there was no concluded contract to increase the rent to Rs. 200 per month. The District Munsif, Karur, who is also the Rent Controller under the Act, tried the suit for arrears of rent and the application for eviction of the tenant together, and, by consent of the parties, the evidence recorded in the suit was treated as evidence in the proceedings under the Rent Control Act. Eviction was sought on the basis that the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of rent. The agreement, according to the landlord, was in February 1960, and the tenant had to pay rent at Rs. 200 per month from 1st Masi 1960. But even for the very first payment, he sent only a draft for a sum of Rs. 112.50 This was rejected by the landlord. The tenant, without reference to the landlord, proceeded to deposit monthly rents at Rs. 112.50 per month in the Karur Vysia Bank Ltd., and, when a notice was issued by the landlord on 20th February, 1961, a year after the alleged first default, he forthwith sent a draft for the rents due till then, Rs. 1,350. The landlord states that he accepted the same without prejudice to his contentions. For future months the tenant sent rents at the rate of Rs. 112.50 per month and they were also accepted by the landlord without prejudice to his claim. The suit for arrears of rent was instituted on 5th February, 1963, when three years were about to elapse after the repudiation, the arrears being the difference which the landlord claimed that he was entitled to. The petition for eviction was filed long after in August, 1963. The District Munsif, Karur, who decreed the suit, upheld the contention of the landlord that there was wilful default in the payment of rent and ordered eviction as prayed for. The appeal from the order of the Rent Controller was laid by the tenant before the Subordinate Judge, the Appellate authority, and the appeal from the decree for arrears of rent came up before the District Judge, Tiruchirapalli. As the tenant agreed to abide by the decision in the District Court, the Rent Control Appeal was disposed by the learned Subordinate Judge after the decision of the learned District Judge.

Notwithstanding the agreement to abide by the decision of the District Court, I find that the question of arrears was argued on the merits over again before the learned Subordinate Judge. The learned Subordinate Judge set before himself for determination in the appeal only the question whether the agreement dated 8th February, 1960 is true and vaild. He found that the agreement is true and valid. Without further discussion as to the effect of the finding, he dismissed the tenant’s appeal before him. Here the learned Subordinate Judge has overlooked one crucial aspect for consideration in the appeal before him. The tenant had, no doubt, agreed to abide by the decision of the District Court even in the rent control appeal before the Subordinate Judge. Actually, the order of the learned District Judge on the application for transfer of the appeal before him to the Subordinate Judge, to be heard along with the appeal under the Rent Control Act, runs thus:

“In view of the stand taken by the respondent (tenant) that he is prepared to abide by the decision of this Court in respect of the C.M.A. that is pending before the Sub-Court, it is unnecessary to transfer this appeal to the Sub-Court.”

Clearly this does not mean that, if the appeal before the District Court is dismissed, the appeal under the Rent Control Act has also to be dismissed straightaway. The decision in the District