Skip to content


Dr. G.V. Subba Rao Vs. Deviji Govindji and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Petn. No. 6677 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Mad555
ActsMadras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 - Sections 4
AppellantDr. G.V. Subba Rao
RespondentDeviji Govindji and anr.
Appellant AdvocateY.G. Krishnamurthy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGajendram Naidu, Adv. i/b., Short Bewes and Co.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- .....points were taken in this application. the first is as regards the amount of fair rant fixed. the rent controller fixed it at the rate of rs. 32 8-0 for the period prior to 1st october 1946 and at rs. 41-4-0 for the period thereafter. the appellate authority has fixed a fair rent of rs. 41-8-0. the petitioner's counsel relied upon the basis of the rent controller's order and contended that the appellate authority was wrong in fixing the rent at rs. 41-8 0. we do not feel inclined to interfere with the rent as fixed by the appellate authority. he may be wrong, but that is not a ground for interfering with his order. 2. the petitioner's second point is certainly substantial. the appellate authority after fixing the fair rent held that it cannot be given retrospective effect and should.....
Judgment:

Rajamannar, C.J.

1. Two points were taken in this application. The first is as regards the amount of fair rant fixed. The Rent Controller fixed it at the rate of Rs. 32 8-0 for the period prior to 1st October 1946 and at Rs. 41-4-0 for the period thereafter. The appellate authority has fixed a fair rent of Rs. 41-8-0. The petitioner's counsel relied upon the basis of the Rent Controller's order and contended that the appellate authority was wrong in fixing the rent at Rs. 41-8 0. We do not feel inclined to interfere with the rent as fixed by the appellate authority. He may be wrong, but that is not a ground for interfering with his order.

2. The petitioner's second point is certainly substantial. The appellate authority after fixing the fair rent held that it cannot be given retrospective effect and should come into operation only from 8th February 1947. We are unable to find any justification for this restriction, Section 6 (c) of the Act in the most express and unequivocal terms declares that any sum paid in excess of the fair rent even before the commencement of the Act in respect of the use of the building after the commencement of the Act shall be repaid to the tenant. The order of the Rent Controller is opposed to the provisions of the Act. On an application under Section 4 of the Act, the only jurisdiction which the appellate authority and the Rent Controller have is to fix the fair rent. What rights accrue to the landlord and the tenant is not within their province on an application under Section 4.

3. We therefore quash that portion of the order of the appellate authority which declares that the fair rent shall take effect from 8th February 1947. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //