1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant, under section 32 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act' for short), against the order dated 3.2.95, passed by 3rd Additional District judge, Jabalpur, in M.C.A. No. 19/92, arising out of order dated 18.10.92, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur, in Case No. 3-A/90-(1)/90-91.

2. The respondents filed an application under section 10 of 'the Act' before the Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur. In the application, it was stated that the rent was Rs. 400/- but it should have been Rs. 1,400/- and this was the prayer that the standard rent should have been fixed at Rs. 1,400/-. The applicant, however, raised a preliminary objection by filing an application that the Rent Controlling Authority, cannot proceed to decide the application under section 10 of 'the Act' until and unless a notice, as provided under section 9 of 'the Act', is given to the tenant by the landlord. The Rent Controlling Authority rejected the objection of the appellant. In appeal, the order of the Rent Controlling Authority was maintained.

3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. In this appeal, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that the application under section 10 of 'the Act' is maintainable only when a notice under section 9 of 'the Act' is given to the tenant by the landlord. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that since the landlord has applied and has requested the Rent Controlling Authority to increase the rent from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 1,400/-, therefore, the aforesaid notice under section 9 of 'the Act' was a must and in absence of such a notice the Rent Controlling Authority had no jurisdiction to proceed further.

4. On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that from the language of section 9 of 'the Act' it appears that it is not mandatory as it does not provide that the Rent Controlling Authority shall not proceed under section 10 of 'the Act' without the service of notice upon the tenant. It cannot be, therefore, argued that by way of implication a notice is a must or it is mandatory, before filing an application under section 10 of 'the Act'. The alternative argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents is that unless and until the standard rent is fixed, there is no question of service of notice under section 9 of 'the Act' . When the landlord wants an increase in the standard rent, as provided by section 8 of 'the Act', then only a notice is a must, otherwise, the proceedings under section 10 of 'the Act' could go on for fixing the fair rent. The learned counsel for the respondents also says that a landlord is not entitled to charge more than the standard rent as per provisions of 'the Act' and, therefore, it is possible that the rent may not be fixed at the rate of Rs. 1,400/-. It could be even reduced. The application is for fixing the standard rent in accordance with law and it would be, according to the respondents, Rs. 1,400/-. The decision in the case of Akhtar Russin Munshi Baker Russin v. Deshraj Balmukund, reported in AIR 1955 MB 21, is not applicable for the simple reason that the language of section 7 ofM.B. Sthan Niyantran Vidhan (15 of 1950) was to the effect that without service of notice the proceedings under section 4 of M.B. Sthan Niyantran Vidhan (15 of 1950), of fixing the fair rent under that Act could not be undertaken.

5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that there is nothing to show that section 9 of 'the Act' was expressly meant to be made applicable to proceedings under section 10 of 'the Act', for fixing the standard rent for the first time. It is clear from the provisions of section 6 of 'the Act' that a landlord cannot charge more than anything in excess of the standard rent and the wordings of section 9 of 'the Act' indicate that the increase should be lawful. The lawful increase can only