| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/791496 |
| Subject | Criminal |
| Court | Chennai |
| Decided On | Dec-05-1949 |
| Case Number | Criminal Revn. Case No. 1553 and Cri. Revn. Petn. No. 1470 of 1949 |
| Judge | Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. |
| Reported in | AIR1950Mad432 |
| Acts | Madras Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1946 - Sections 3 and 3(1) |
| Appellant | In Re: E.B. Nagaratnammal |
| Advocates: | J. Seethamahalakshmi, Adv.;Crown Prosecutor |
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.