The Rent Controller's jurisdiction to fix a fair rent is limited to cases where the existing rent is found insufficient or excessive, and the Rent Controller's order must operate prospectively from the date on which he is moved.

1. The Petitioner Kewalchand is a tenant and has filed this petition praying that- the order of the Rent Control Authorities be set aside and suitable direction be given to them to act in accordance with law, by a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ, order or direction.

The petition is directed against, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur, though in correct practice it was necessary also to bring up the order of the Rent Controller before us. The landlord of the premises against whom this petition is also directed is one Samirmal Jaini. At the hearing, Jaini was represented by a Counsel, but not the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur.

2. The Petitioner's case is as follows. Jaini has a house which is divided into various blocks, one such block being in the occupation of the Petitioner Kewalchand. Prior to Kewalchand, the block was occupied by one Kanhaiya Lal who vacated it sometime before 20th December 1948. The block was, however, allotted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur, to Kewalchand on the 20th December 1943. It is probable that he was a sub-tenant let into occupation of that block by Kanhaiyalal; but that is not a matter which affects the merits of the present petition.

3. The order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner allotting the block to Kewalchand is not before us; but' it is common ground that it does not name the rent to be paid by Kewalchand to Jaini. It is proved in the case by the deposition of Kanhaiyalal that he was paying at first Rs. 18-0-0 per month as rent for this block but about 1948 his rent was increased to Rs. 21-4-0 because of a 12 1/2 per cent increase which the landlord made and additional sums of 0-8-0 each as enhanced nazul rent and municipal taxes.

4. When Kewalchand came into occupation as a tenant, he sent Rs. 18-0-0 per month to his landlord by money orders, but those money orders were all refused. The landlord Jaini thereafter made an application to the Rent Controller, Nagpur, on 29-9-1951 asking for the fixation of a fair rent. This application was decided in his favour by the Rent Controller on 30-11-1951. By this order, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent "at Rs. 23-3-0 or in round figures Rs. 24-0-0 per month with effect from 20th December 1948."

5. Against this order, an appeal was taken under the provisions of the Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, to the Additional Deputy Commissioner. Nagpur, who 'inter alia' held that the fixation of the fair rent of the premises at Rs. 24-0-0 per month was correct and that the appeal had no substance. The present petition has, therefore, been filed by Kewalchand asking for the aforesaid writs and directions to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur.

6. The Petition was argued on four points. The first contention of the tenant is that he is in occupation of block No. 148/2 and not, 148/3 as decided by the Rent Controller. It may be pointed out that the tenant led no evidence on this part of his case before the Rent Controller. He only filed an affidavit in this Court. Since the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to fix a fair rent was in respect of the premises occupied by the tenant, we went into this matter and satisfied ourselves that no wrong assumption of jurisdiction was indicated, inasmuch as the Rent Controller has, in effect, fixed the fair rent of the premises held by Kewalchand. The jamabandis of the Municipality which have been produced by the landlord right from 1938 to 1952 show that the premises in occupation of Kanhaiyalal were bearing No. 159/A up to the year 1946-47 and the self-same premises now bear the number 148/3. This position is further fortified by the evidence of Kanhaiyalal recorded by the Rent Controller and this is not displaced by the production of the Voters' List which shows the premises as No. 148/2, because the Voters' List has practically no evidentiary value. We have not in this case decided whether additional evidence of this character can be accepted