The limitation prescribed in Section 11 of the Rent Control Act, 1952 does not apply to an application for fixation of standard rent when it is made in a suit.

Bishan Narain, J.

1. This is a revision petition under section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.

2. The facts relevant for the decision of this petition are these. Shop No. 2870 situated at Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi belongs to Radhey Piari. It was constructed some time in 1946 and therefore was first let after 2nd of June, 1944. Kalyan Singh took this shop on lease on 30th of October, 1948 at Rs. 112/8/- per mensem. On 12th of October, 1953, the landlady filed the present suit for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of (1) non-payment of arrears of rent in spite of demand and (2) subletting part of the premises to a watch repairer. According to the plaintiff Rs. 866/4/- were due from the tenant as arrears of rent but no decree for recovery of this amount was sought. The tenant deposited Rs. 2,000/- towards the arrears of rent and costs etc. on or before the first day of hearing of the suit and denied having sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of any part of the premises. In the written statement the tenant also sought for fixation of standard rent claiming that the agreed rent exceeded it. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the tenant had sublet any part of the shop and fixing the standard rent at Rs. 37/8/- dismissed the suit. Mst. Radhey Piari appealed and the Senior Sub-Judge affirmed the trial Courts finding that the" tenant had not sublet the premises. He, however, increased the standard rent from Rs. 37/8/- to Rs. 50/- per mensem. The plaintiff is dissatisfied with (his decision and has filed this petition for revision.

3. Shri Gurbachan Singh the learned counsel for Mst. Radhey Piari has argued that (1) the tenants application for fixation of standard rent was barred by time and should have been rejected on that ground and (2) that the tenant had sublet the premises to a watch-repairer. The learned counsel, however, frankly conceded that if application for fixation of standard rent is held to be within time then the amount cannot be challenged in these proceedings.

4. On the question of limitation the contention of the learned counsel is this. The premises were let before the Act came into force on 9th June 1952. Section 11 of the Rent Control Act, 1952 fixes six months limitation for an application for fixation of standard rent from the commencement of the Act on 9th of June 1952. The present application was made long after the expiry of this period. It was urged that section 11 applied even if such an application is contained in A written statement because in substance it is an application for fixation of standard rent though it is contained in a written statement.

5. Now there can be no doubt that the Rent Control Act modifies the general law as applicable to landlords and tenants and creates new rights and liabilities between them. The scope of these rights and liabililics can be determined only under the provisions of this enactment (vide Hem Chand v. Smt. Sham Devi, 1955 Pun LR 441). Under the Contract Act the rent fixed by agreement of the parties is binding on them unless the agreement can be avoided on certain grounds specified in that Act. Therefore, the landlord is bound to receive and the tenant is bound to pay the rent fixed by agreement. in view of shortage of available accommodation the legislature has stepped in and has enacted the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 to control rents and evictions to certain kinds of premises. Chapter II consisting of sections 4 to 12 relates to control of rents while Chapter III relates to control of evictions. In the present case we arc concerned only with Chapter II of the Act. It follows from the provisions contained in this Chapter that the controlled rent or in other words standard rent can be determined only by the provisions contained therein. Now the provisions relevant for the present case are these. Notwithstanding any agreement no landlord can claim or recover or recei