Parvathiammal vs P.K. Govinda Panicker

Natesan, J.—This revision is directed against an order under S. 33 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. On the

application of the tenant in H.R.C. 908 of 1962, the Rent Controller directed the restoration of certain amenities, a kitchen and a pathway. There

was an appeal therefrom in H.R.A. 661 of 1962 and the appellate Court upheld the order of the Rent Controller and found that the respondent

was entitled to the restoration of the amenities, namely, the kitchen and the pathway, taken away from the tenant by the landlord. The appeal was

dismissed, the judgment being pronounced on 8th July 1963. That order has become final and has not been the subject of any subsequent

challenge. The present proceedings have been initiated by the tenant under S. 33 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The

defence is a denial of disobedience. The learned Sixth Presidency Magistrate went into the question whether the present petitioner had disobeyed

the orders and contravened the provisions of S. 17 of the Act and found that the denial was not maintainable on the evidence and that the present

petitioner was guilty under S. 33 of the Act. It may be stated that the main defence, which was only in argument, was that there was no finding in

the earlier proceedings before the Rent Controller that the accused had cut off the amenities without just or sufficient cause. But this contention is

not open in the present proceedings. That order has become final. The very defence of the petitioner that the original order was not justified

confirms the complaint that there has been disobedience of the order passed by the Rent Controller under S. 17(1). The petitioner even here seeks

to maintain that the claim by the tenant was not for amenities to the restoration of which he was entitled. It being not open to the petitioner in these

proceedings to go behind the order and contend that there was no cutting off, of the amenities, Learned Counsel next raised a point that the Court

had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under S. 33(1) of the Act. The point made is that S. 33 of the Act, Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent

Control) Act. (18 of 1960), refers only to the contravening of the provisions of Sub-S. (1) of S. 17 or of an order under Sub-S. 3 of S. 17 of the

Act. It is argued that as admittedly there was no order under Sub-S. 3 (of S. 17) and there being no reference to an order under S. 17 (4) in S.

33, the prosecution for non-compliance with an order under Sec. 17 (4), is untenable. It is overlooked that S. 17(1) is the section entitling the

tenant to the continuance of the amenities. Sub-S. (4) of S. 17 provides for an order for the restoration of the amenities if the amenities are cut off

or withheld by the landlord without just or sufficient cause. The result of non-compliance with order under Sub-S. (4) is conclusive evidence that

the amenities which the tenant was entitled to under S. 17 (1) were unlawfully cut off. An order under S. 17 (4) being there, and it being clear from

the defence itself that there has been no restoration of the amenities pursuant to the order it follows that the landlord has contravened S. 17 (1) of

the Act. This entitles the tenant to seek relief under S. 33 of the Act for punishing the landlord. The question of jurisdiction also therefore fails.

The petitioner has misconceived her rights and, in the circumstances, I reduce the fine to a sum of Rs. 50. With this modification in the sentence,

the revision petition is dismissed. Time for payment of fine two weeks.