Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The landlord is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 15.9.1993, whereby the learned Rent Controller, allowed the application filed by the tenant under Section 19 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for permission to prosecute the petitioner herein.
2. The respondent herein is a tenant. The petitioners are entitled to 2/3rd share of the rent, whereas the remaining 1/3rd share of the rent is payable to one Kaka Ram. In an earlier petition under Section 13 of the Act, the parties entered into settlement on 5.2.1963, in the said petition, by way of a compromise, the tenant agreed to pay Rs. 20/8 anna per month as rent with effect from 1.2.1963 and the landlord leased out Chabutara to the tenant as well
3. Subsequently, the petitioners tiled an ejectment petition claiming rent @ 2/3 share i.e. Rs. 23/- per month. In the said ejectment petition on, the rent was tendered for the period 1.1.1973 to 30.10.1987. After the said rent was tendered, the landlord withdrew the ejectmet petition on 5.1.1988. Thereafter, the tenant filed an application under Section 19 of the Act for grant of permission to prosecute the landlord on the ground that the landlord has claimed rent in excess of the agreed rent and, therefore, the landlord is liable to be prosecuted for an offence under Section 19(2) of the Act.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised a short argument that the agreement dated 5.2.1963 is not for fixation or assessment of the fair rent and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be said to have contravened the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) of the Act.
5. In reply, learned Counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the compromise before the Court has the effect of fixation of fair rent in terms of Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, the claim of rent in excess of the agreed rent would make the landlords liable for prosecution in terms of Section 6(1)(a) of the Act. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court rendered in Civil Revision No. 648, Shri Sat Parkash v. Parkash Chand. decided on 6.4.1961.
6. Before proceeding further, the reproduction of the relevant provisions contained in Section 6(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Act would be relevant:-
Section 6(1)(a) The landlord shall not claim or receive any premium or other like sum in addition to fair rent or any rent in excess of such fair rent, but the landlord may stipulate for and receive in advance an amount not exceeding one month's rent.'
Section 19(2) If any person contravenes any of the provisions of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extended to one thousand rupees.
7. A perusal of the said provisions would show that there is prohibition against the landlord to claim or receive any premium or other like sum in addition to the fair rent or any rent in excess of such fair rent. Therefore, the question, which is required to be decided is whether the rent agreed in petition under Section 13 of the Act would be a fair rent which may make the landlord liable for prosecution for violation of Section 6 of the Act, The compromise dated 5.2.1963 was entered upon between the parties in a petition under Section 13 of the Act, wherein Chabutara was included in the tenanted premises. Said compromise will not have the effect of fixation of the fair rent in terms of Section 4 of the Act. In fact, the judgment referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent examined the effect of compromise entered between the parties in the proceedings for fixation of a fair rent. This court held that the compromise entered in Court would be binding or the tenant and he is precluded from re-agitating the matter both by the principle of res judicata and by the principle of estoppel. Since in the present case the compromise was not in the proceedings for fixation of the fair rent, the judgment referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent has no applicability. The landlord could not be prosecuted for violation of Section 6(1)(a) of the Act, when the fair rent was not fixed.
8. In view of the above, I find that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller granting permission to prosecute the landlord is wholly illegal and unwarranted and therefore, the same is set aside.