Joseph J. Kondody Vs. Michael Kuruvilla - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....mainly contended that a landlord has no right to apply for the fixation of a fair rent at a figure higher than the contractual rent, where there was a subsisting contract of tenancy. dismissing the appeal, held : (per majority and bhagwati, jj. contra) the present act which replaces the 1949 act adopts a completely new scheme of its own and provides for every contingency, i.e. in 'the relationship of landlord and tenant. the provisions of the act show that the madras legislature deliberately proceeded on, the basis that fair rent was to be fixed which was to be fair both to the landlords as 'well as to the tenants, and that only the poorer class of tenants needed protection. 'the assumption that the act like ill rent acts, is intended only for the to on of tenants is not warranted by the..........is set aside in view of the.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Heard the parties.

2. The sole appellant was charged and tried under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and by an order rendered by the trial Court acquitted of the charge. On appeal being preferred by the complainant before the Kerala High Court the order of acquittal has been reversed and the appellant has been convicted under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 3000 in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Hence this appeal by special leave.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties stated that the parties have compromised the matter and filed a petition before this Court for grant of permission to compound the offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our [opinion], it is a fit case for according permission to the parties to compound the offence. In view of these facts the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court is set aside in view of the compounding.