Harbans Singh, J. - (1.) ON an application made by the tenant under Section 19 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for permission to file a criminal complaint against the landlord because he was realising rent at the rate of Rs. 22 which was in excess of the fair rent fixed of the premises at Rs. 16, the Rent Controller came to the following findings: (i) That fair rent had been fixed at Rs. 16, per mensem of the premises in dispute ; (ii) That the premises in dispute also included the additional area known as 'Taki', which according to the landlord had been given subsequently. Consequently, the Rent Controller allowed permission to the tenant to file a complaint against the landlord. The landlord has come up in revision.
(2.) THE only point urged is that no fair rent of the premises in dispute had been fixed. The position is like this. Another tenant, who was occupying these premises earlier, had filed an application under Section 4 of the Act against his landlords, who were the predecessors -in -interest of the present landlord (Petitioner before me). The Rent Controller did not fix the fair rent after determining it in a judicial manner, but he fixed Rs. 16 as the fair rent on the basis of the statements of the tenant and the landlord, both agreeing that the fair rent be fixed at Rs. 16 per mensem. These facts are not challenged. The only point for determination is, whether this fixation of rent amounts to "fair rent" fixed under Section 4 of the Act, for charging more than which amount the landlord is liable to be prosecuted on an application being made by the tenant under Section 19 of the Act.
(3.) ONE thing is now well settled. If an application is filed by a landlord for the ejectment of a tenant under Section 13 of the Act and an order of ejectment is passed, not after the Court has given a finding that one or more of the conditions precedent for directing an order of ejectment under Section 13 of the Act do exist but merely on the statement of the tenant that a decree for ejectment may be passed and that he will put the landlord in possession of the premises after certain period, then such a decree would be a nullity and unenforceable. See in this respect Smt. Kanshalya Devi and Ors. v. K.L. Bansal : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 838. There a compromise was arrived at between the parties in the following terms: Decree for ejectment be passed in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant, the decree will be executable after the 31st December, 1958, if the Defendant does not give possession till then. * * *.;