Rent if refers to fair rent.

The conviction of the petitioner was undoubtedly correct. An exchange of buildings by two persons inevitably involves the vacancies of both buildings. A vacates building A, B vacates building B, then A occupies building B, and B occupies building A. The mere naming of such a double vacancy and double occupation as an exchange cannot alter the facts. So the petitioner was bound to notify the vacancy of the Rs. 35 building to the Controller and take his permission to occupy it instead of quietly occupying it herself.

I have held already in two recent cases that “rent” under section 3(1) means the “actual rent” paid or payable, and not a “fair rent” when none has been fixed Surely a person receiving from another Rs. 35 as rent in hard cash cannot be allowed to quibble and say that the actual rent will be much less. The rule that a person cannot approbate and reprobate or blow hot and cold in the same breath will apply here also.

So, I confirm the petitioner’s conviction, but, in the peculiar circumstances reduce the fine to Rs.10 or in default, simple imprisonment for a week. The excess fine, if paid, will be refunded.