1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15th of September, 1999 dismissing thereby the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of Rs. 68,700/-.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit against the defendant/respondent with the allegations that he advanced a loan of Rs.45,000/- to the defendant on 2.11.1989 for construction of shop situated at Shivpuri on interest @ 1.50% p.m. Defendant issued a receipt in his own handwriting. Plaintiff obtained two shops from defendant on rent @ Rs.550/- p.m. on 2.11.1989. Rent was paid up to February, 1990. However, defendant fraudulently, obtained signature on rent note from plaintiff's son, namely, Vishnu Kumar and showed him as tenant. Plaintiff issued a notice of demand of Rs.45,000/- with interest which was incorrectly replied. Hence, the suit for recovery of Rs.45,000/- towards principal and Rs.23,625/- towards interest.

3. Defendant by submitting written statement, acknowledged the receipt of Rs.45,000/-, however, it was stated that the amount was received to secure tenancy of plaintiff's son in respect of two shops and money was refundable at the time of vacation. No interest was payable on the said amount. It is further stated that defendant has already issued a notice to the plaintiff's son for eviction and arrears of rent.

4. After recording the evidence, learned trial Judge found transaction of money to be proved. However, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the amount was deposited as security and not as advance. Since the son of the plaintiff was occupying the suit shop and had not vacated, it was held that the amount was not liable to be refunded. Accordingly the suit was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.9.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the parites made their respective submissions. It may be seen that learned trial Judge has found it proved that Rs.45,000/- were received by the defendant, hence receipt (Ex - P /1) was issued by him in token of the receipt. It has been further found that the money was received to ensure the tenancy in respect of shop in favour of plaintiff's son. Section 5 and 6 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act read as under :-

5. Rent in excess of standard rent not recoverable :- (1) No tenant shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be liable to pay to his landlord for the occupation of any accommodation any amount in excess of the standard rent of the accommodation.

(2) Any agreement for the payment of rent in excess of the standard rent shall be construed as if it were an agreement for the payment of the standard rent only.

6. Unlawful charges not to be claimed or received:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall claim or receive any rent in excess of the standard rent, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

(2) No person shall, in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy of sub-tenancy of any accommodation

(a) Claim or receive the payment of any sum as premium or pugree or claim or receive any consideration whatsoever, in cash or in kind, in addition to the rent; or

(b) Except with the previous permission of the Rent Controlling Authority, claim or receive the payment of any sum exceeding one month's rent of such accommodation as rent in advance.

(3) It shall not be lawful for the tanant or any other person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the tenant or a Sub-tenant to claim or. receive any payment in consideration of the relinquishment, transfer or assignment of his tenancy or sub-tenancy, as the case may be, of any accommodation.

(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any payment made under an agreement by any person to a landlord for the purpose of financing the construction of the whole or part of any accommodation on the land belonging to, or taking on lease, by the landlord, if o