Court rules extra tax payment by tenant not considered rent. Rent below Rs. 400, subject to Rent Act. Chief Rent Controller has jurisdiction.

The court held that the extra municipal tax payment made by the tenant cannot be considered as rent, as the contractual rent is confined to the amounts specified in the registered lease deed. Consequently, the monthly rent remained below Rs. 400, rendering the premises subject to the Rent Act provisions. The Chief Rent Controller was deemed to have jurisdiction to hear and decide on the fair rent application. The writ appeal was granted, and the writ petition was rejected with costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to contractual tenancies.
2. Determination of monthly rent exceeding Rs. 400 and its implications.
3. Constitutional validity of the Amending Act XI of 1964.
4. Classification of municipal tax payments as rent.
5. Admissibility of evidence varying terms of a registered lease deed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to Contractual Tenancies:
The tenant argued that the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) does not apply to contractual tenancies and that rights and liabilities under the Act arise only upon the termination of such tenancies. The Full Bench, however, held that the Act is a complete code enabling both landlords and tenants to seek the benefit of fair rent under its provisions, regardless of the subsistence of a contractual tenancy. This position was affirmed in Raval and Company v. K. G. Ramachandran (1966) 2 MLJ 68.

2. Determination of Monthly Rent Exceeding Rs. 400 and Its Implications:
The tenant contended that the monthly rent paid exceeded Rs. 400, making the tenancy exempt from the Act when the application for fixation of fair rent was filed. The landlord argued that the extra municipal tax of Rs. 1,212 paid by the tenant should not be considered as "rent." The court examined whether payments towards municipal tax, both stipulated and excess, should be merged with the rent within the meaning of the Rent Act. The court concluded that any payment agreed upon as consideration for the tenancy, including municipal taxes, constitutes rent. However, the court also determined that any variation of rent stipulated in a registered lease deed must be evidenced by another registered instrument, rendering the excess tax payment inadmissible as rent.

3. Constitutional Validity of the Amending Act XI of 1964:
The tenant challenged the Amending Act XI of 1964, which removed the exemption limit for non-residential buildings, on grounds of discrimination under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The Full Bench found the Act and its amendments within the legislative competency of the State Legislature and validly passed.

4. Classification of Municipal Tax Payments as Rent:
The court addressed whether contributions towards municipal taxes paid by the tenant should be classified as rent. It was determined that payments specified in the lease deed, such as the annual contribution of Rs. 220 towards taxes, are part of the rent. However, any excess tax payments agreed upon subsequently and not stipulated in the registered lease deed cannot be considered rent unless evidenced by another registered instrument.

5. Admissibility of Evidence Varying Terms of a Registered Lease Deed:
The court held that any variation in rent stipulated in a registered lease deed must be evidenced by another registered instrument, as per Sections 105 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 92 of the Evidence Act. The tenant's claim of an agreement to pay excess municipal taxes as rent was thus inadmissible without a registered instrument.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the extra municipal tax of Rs. 1,212 paid by the tenant cannot be treated as rent, as the contractual rent is limited to the amounts stipulated in the registered lease deed. Consequently, the monthly rent falls below Rs. 400, and the premises were not exempt from the provisions of the Rent Act when the application for fixation of fair rent was filed. The Chief Rent Controller, therefore, has jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the fair rent application on its merits. The writ appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed with costs.

---