In Re: E.B. Nagaratnammal

- orderpanchapakesa ayyar, j.1. the conviction of the petitioner was undoubtedly correct. an exchange of buildings by two persons inevitably involves the vacancies of both buildings. a vacates building a, b vacates building b then a occupies building b, and b occupies building a. the mere naming of such a double vacancy and double occupation as an exchange cannot alter the facts. so the petitioner was bound to notify the vacancy of the rs. 35/- building to the controller and take his permission to occupy it instead of quietly occupying it herself.2. i have held already in two recent cases that 'rent' under section 3 (2) means the 'actual rent' paid or payable, and not a 'fair rent' when none has been fixed. surely, a person receiving from another rs. 35/- as rent in hard cash cannot be allowed to quibble and say that the actual rent will be much less. the rule that a person cannot approbate and reprobate or blow hot and cold in the same breath will apply here also.3. so, i confirm the petitioner's conviction, but, in the peculiar circumstances, reduce the fine to rs. 10/- or in default, simple imprisonment for a week. the excess fine, if paid, will be refunded.