Rent enhancement after repairs is invalid where the accommodation remains unchanged and statutory rent controls continue to apply.

Rent charged after alleged improvement of the accommodation was held to be an impermissible enhancement, not a fresh fixation, under the Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Section 5(2) limits rent increases where the accommodation remains the same, and ordinary repairs do not change its identity. On the facts, the alterations were merely repairs and the accommodation was unchanged; alternatively, even if a change had occurred, there was no agreement or written notice fixing the higher rent. The enhancement was therefore contrary to Section 5, and the conviction under Section 8 was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the increase of rent after the alleged improvement of the house was a lawful fresh fixation of rent or an impermissible enhancement under the Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, and whether the conviction under Section 8 was justified.

Analysis: Section 5(2) restricts enhancement of rent where the accommodation remains the same, by limiting the rent to the reasonable annual rent and to the permissible increase over the rent prevailing on the relevant date. If the accommodation is substantially changed, the matter may amount to a fresh settlement of rent; but where the so-called improvement is only ordinary repair and the identity of the accommodation remains unchanged, any higher charge is still an enhancement governed by Section 5(2). On the facts found, the alterations were merely repairs and did not change the accommodation. Even on the alternative footing that the accommodation had changed, there was no agreement or written notice fixing the higher rent as required.

Conclusion: The enhancement was contrary to Section 5 of the Act and the conviction under Section 8 was rightly sustained.

---