Rajammal vs The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Another

The only point for determination in this application for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the learned Chief Judge of the Court

of Small Causes passed in a House Rent Appeal is when a fair rent is fixed u/s 4 of the Act whether the landlord is entitled to such fair rent when it

is in excess of the rent which was being paid before such fixation from the date of the commencement of the Act or only from the date of the

application for fixing the fair rent. There is no provision, it is admitted, in the Act itself directly dealing with this question. There is however provision

in Section 6(c) of the Act for refund or other adjustment of any sum paid by the tenant in excess of the fair rent whether before or after the

commencement of the Act in respect of the use of the building after the commencement of the Act. But there is no similar provision giving right to

the landlord to claim the difference between the fair rent fixed and the rent which was being paid before the fixing of such fair rent from any date

anterior to the date of the filing of the application u/s 4. It was contended for the respondent that such a provision must be implied as a corollary to

the provision in Section 6(c) of the Act. It is a well-established principle of construction of statutes (hat the Court cannot supply omissions by

implication and analogy, unless the existing provisions of a statute by necessary intendment so compel the Court. We are convinced that in this case

there is nothing in Section 6 or in any other provision of the Act which compels us to hold that, when on an application u/s 4 of the Act fair rent is

fixed the landlord is entitled, when that rent is in excess of the rent which had been paid before the date of the application, to demand the

difference. The omission to make such a provision might well have been. deliberate having regard to the avowed policy of the Act to safeguard the

rights of tenants. Apart from any speculation as to the policy, it is clear that no retrospective operation can be given to the order fixing the fair rent

unless such operation is expressly provided in'' the Act or should be necessarily implied. In this case the application for fixing the fair rent was filed

only on 1st September; 1947, The learned Judge therefore made an error in holding that he could direct the fair rent to come into operation from a

date anterior to the date of the application, as in this case from 20th October, 1946, when some improvements were effected to the premises. The

order of the learned Judge is therefore quashed. The order of the Rent Controller will stand confirmed. There will be no order as to costs.