The date from which the fair rent becomes payable under the Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is the date of the application for fixation of fair rent, and not the date of the order of the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority.

Khosla, J.

1. The point for decision in this second appeal is from what date the rent fixed by the Rent Controller takes effect. Does it take effect from the date upon which the rent was fixed by the Rent Controller or on appeal by the appellate authority or from the date on which the application for the fixation of the rent was made? The Madras High Court has in four different cases held that the date of the application is the relevant date. See -- Rajammal v. Chief Judge, Court of Sm. C. C. Madras, AIR 1950 Mad 185 (A); -- Dr. G. V. Subba Rao V. Deviji Govindji, AIR 1950 Mad 555 (B); -- George Oakes Ltd., v. Chief Judge Sm. C. C., Madras, AIR 1951 Mad 222 CO. and -- Hari Rowji v. Malabar District Board, Kozhikode, AIR 1951 Mad 493 (D). I have also been referred to the decision of Kapur J., in an unreported case, -- Sheo Shankar v. G. D. Kha-nna, Civil Revn. No. 340 of 1948 (E), and Mr. Chiranjiva Lal Aggarwal has drawn my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court which has some bearing on the facts of this case, -- Brij Raj Krishna v. S. K. Shaw and Brothers, AIR 1951 S. C. 115 (P). This matter is likely to arise in other cases and I therefore feel, though somewhat reluctantly, that it should be considered by a larger Bench. I therefore direct that these papers be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for the constitution of a Division Bench to hear this appeal.

ORDER Khosla, J. This second appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 725/- on account of arrears of rent. The matter arose in the following way. The respondent who is a tenant of the premises in suit made an application to the Rent Controller for the fixation of rent on 27-5-1947. The Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 5/- per mensem on 17-8-1048. The landlord appealed against this order and the Appellate Authority fixed the rent at Rs. 25/- per mensem. This order was made on 14-5-1949. The landlord then filed the present suit on 27-3-1950 for the recovery of the arrears of rent on the basis that rent at Rs. 25/- per mensem was payable from the date on which the tenant had made his application, namely 27-5-1947. It may be mentioned here that the contractual rate was Rs. 25/- per mensem. The lease of the respondent began on 19-3-1944. Therefore the effect of the order of the Appellate Authority was that the contractual rent was recognised as the fair rent due from the tenant. The suit was resisted on the ground that the date from which rent at Rs. 25/- per mensem must be computed is the date on which the Appellate Authority passed its order, more particularly because the Rent Controller had fixed the rent at a lower rate. While the suit was pending the landlord also made an application to the Rent Controller for the ejectment of the tenant. This application was made on 19-6-1950. The Rent Controller took the view that under the provisions of the Punjab Rent Restriction Act the date on which the Appellate Authority passed this order was the relevant date for computing the fair rent and therefore there had been no nonpayment of the rent by the tenant. The application for ejectment Was therefore dismissed on 30-3-1951. An appeal was filed against this order and was dismissed on 8-3-1952 by the Appellate Authority.

2. The present suit was decided on 20-3-1951 and the Senior Subordinate Judge took the view that the date of the order made by the Appellate Authority was the date from which the rent payable must be computed. He followed an unreport-ed decision of Kapur J., in -- Civil Revn. No. 340 of 1548 (Punj) (E), in which Kapur J., held that the order of the Rent Controller fixing fair rent takes effect from the date of the order. There was an appeal. The District Judge followed that ruling and dismissed the appeal. It is to be observed that the District Judge who heard the appeal in the suit was also acting as the Appellate Authority under the Rent Restriction Act. The District Judge dismissed the appeal in the present suit on 8-3-1952, i. e., the d