Vishnu Das vs Dr. Krishna Kumar

Siadat Ali Khan, J.—This is a revision petition in a civil case. By judgment dated 11-12-1951, the First-Judge, Small Cause Court, has decreed the landlord''s suit for four months'' rent amounting to Rs. 400. This revision petition is against this order. I have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates of the parties and record my opinion below.

2.The learned Vakil for the revision-Petitioner argued that the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, erred in not staying the suit when not only there was an application for the fixation of a fair rent, before the Rent Controller, but, in fact, the Rent Controller had fixed a fair rent; that the contractual rent was Rs. 100 p.m. and the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller was Rs. 9 per month; that there is plenty of authority for staying of the suit before the learned Judge: vide - Dulhammal Rizumal v. Abdul Kadar AIR 1950 MP 8 and - ''Ramchandra v. Rameshwar AIR 1951 MP 115 and a judgment of this Court in - ''Revn. Petn. No. 124/4 of 1951''. In reply the learned advocate for the Respondent argued that an appeal has been filed against the order of the Rent Controller which is palpably unjust; that there is authority of this Court, for not staying the rent suit: vide - ''Revn. Petn. No. 253/5/1A of 1950'' and that, therefore, the learned Judge was quite correct in not staying the suit.

I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned advocates and I am of the opinion that the judgment under revision cannot be upheld. The judgment of this Court referred to by the learned advocate for the Respondent held that the suit need not be stayed as the Court can make ample provision for safeguarding the rights of the tenant in case a lower rent is fixed by the Rent Controller as fair rent, and a perusal of the judgment under revision will show that the learned Judge did not pay any heed to this condition, and make no provision in his judgment for refund. Moreover, the judgment of this Court relied upon by the learned advocate for the Respondent can be distinguished as in that case the Rent Controller had not fixed any rent and the learned Single Bench Judge who decided that case was pleased to remark that one does not know how long will it be before the Rent Controller would fix the fair rent. Such is not the case here. The Rent Controller has already fixed the fair rent and the appeal cannot certainly take a long time.

On principle it appears to me that when the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to determine fair rent, the balance of convenience will lie in staying the suit for rent for otherwise it will be putting the parties to inconvenience and expense.

On these grounds I accept this revision set aside the judgment under revision and direct that the suit be stayed till the decision of the appeal against the order of the Rent Controller is pronounced. I make no order as to costs.