Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.
1. The conviction of the petitioner was undoubtedly correct. An exchange of buildings by two persons inevitably involves the vacancies of both buildings. A vacates building A, B vacates building B then A occupies building B, and B occupies building A. The mere naming of such a double vacancy and double occupation as an exchange cannot alter the facts. So the petitioner was bound to notify the vacancy of the Rs. 35/- building to the Controller and take his permission to occupy it instead of quietly occupying it herself.
2. I have held already in two recent cases that 'rent' under Section 3 (2) means the 'actual rent' paid or payable, and not a 'fair rent' when none has been fixed. Surely, a person receiving from another Rs. 35/- as rent in hard cash cannot be allowed to quibble and say that the actual rent will be much less. The rule that a person cannot approbate and reprobate or blow hot and cold in the same breath will apply here also.
3. So, I confirm the petitioner's conviction, but, in the peculiar circumstances, reduce the fine to Rs. 10/- or in default, simple imprisonment for a week. The excess fine, if paid, will be refunded.