JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of a tenant and arrears of rent. House No. 62 was taken on rent by the appellant from the respondent in 1938 and the plaintiff's case is that the rent was initially Rs. 18 per month but was reduced to Rs. 15 because the defendant fell on bad days. On 10-4-1946, the plaintiff gave notice terminating the lease and making a demand for enhanced rent at Rs. 22-8-0 per month. The defendant declined to vacate or pay enhanced rent and pleaded that the plaintiff could not seek to eject him or ask for enhanced rent. The suit was dismissed by the Additional Munsiff, City, Indore, but the dismissal was set aside in appeal and the suit decreed in full with costs. The defendant has come up in second appeal. 2. The Indore House Rent Control Order 1943, provided for a Controller who, under S. 3 of the Order was empowered to record a finding after a summary enquiry, when ha had reason to believe on a complaint in writing or otherwise that the rent of any house covered by the order was excessive; and it is clear that under the provisions of this section, as it stood then, the Controller had no power to enquire into the inadequacy of rents. It follows that the complaint referred to would come from the tenant affected by the excessive rent or from some individual inspired by philanthropy or malice, or may be suo motu from an enthusiastic Controller. The section was amended on 10-5-1948 (vide Holkar Government Gazette of that date p. 218) so as to give power to the Controller to make an enquiry into the insufficiency of rent. The notice in the present case was given on 10-4-1946 and it is admitted that the tenant took no steps to have a decision from the Controller as provided by the Rent Control Order. 3. The notice in the present case was given on 10-4-1946 and it is admitted that the tenant took no steps to have a decision from the Controller as provided by the Rent Control Order. 3. It is conceded on behalf of the appellant that but for the Rent Control Order, the land, lord has power to enhance rent; but it is vehemently contended that the power must be deemed to have been taken away by S. 7 of the Order which runs thus : (a) "After the 'Commencement of this Order an increase in rent shall be permissible only where soma addition, improvement or alteration not included in necessary repairs or repairs which are usually made to houses in the local area, has been carried out at the landlord's expense since the rent was fixed. (b) Any such increase in rent shall not exceed 7 1/2 per cent, per annum on the cost of such addition, improvement or alteration and shall not be chargeable until such addition, improvement or alteration has been completed." This section is unhappily worded and it therefore becomes necessary to consider other provisions of the order to ascertain the true meaning of its provisions. As stated above, S. 3 empowers the Controller appointed under the order to record a finding about the rent being excessive. Section 4 then authorises him to determine the fair rent to be charged for the house. Section 6 then provides : "The Controllor while fixing the fair rent under el, 4 shall not permit any landlord to charge a rate of rent which exceeds: (i) by more than 25 per cent, the rental value as entered or that should have been entered in the current house-tax assessment tax-book of the local Municipality; or (ii) by more than 25 per cent. of the rental value prevailing in December 1940, in respect of houses in areas where rental value is not assessed." 3a. Clause (1) of this section justifies as fair a rate of rent up to 25 per cent, in excess of the rental value as entered in the current house-tax assessment book of the Municipality. Whereas S. 7 allows an increased of only 10 per cent, over the fixed rent. Obviously therefore, the increase contemplated in S. 7 must be construed to mean an increase over the 'fair rent' calculated on the basis of S. 6. Whereas S. 7 allows an increased of only 10 per cent, over the fixed rent. Obviously therefore, the increase contemplated in S. 7 must be construed to mean an increase over the 'fair rent' calculated on the basis of S. 6. To hold otherwise would render S. 5 a dead letter. It is an accepted principle of interpretation that an enactment must be construed so as to avoid inconsistency and an interpretation which would make any provision of it nugatory or absurd must be avoided. The concluding words of cl. 1 of S. 7 viz., "since the rent was fixed" can in this view mean "since the rent was fixed on a reference to the Controller" and the contention of the appellant's learned counsel that the increase in S. 7 means any increase whatsoever must be repelled. 4. It is conceded that the rental value of the tenement in the suit is Rs. 18 per month and an increase by 25 percent, being not opposed to the provisions of the Rent Control Order, the rent demanded could well be considered to be 'fair rent'.The question, therefore, is only whether the landlord could claim this fair rent without having it fixed by the Controller. Section 4 of the Order as it stood at the date of the suit did not provide for a fixation of an increase in the rent; but notwithstanding this, S. 6, made a provision that the Controller "shall not permit any landlord to charge a rate of rent which exceeds"-then follows cl. (1). It seems to me that the legislature in its wisdom left the power of the landlord to charge rent unaffected within the limits provided by cl. (i) and gave the Controller the power while fixing the fair rent to bring enhanced rents or rents in excess of limits of fair rent to the level prescribed in cl. (1). Another view would make the words "shall not permit any landlord" meaningless. I am of opinion, that the landlord was, in this case justified in enhancing the rent; and the tenant's refusal to pay the enhanced rent which as I have held above is within the meaning of "fair rent" renders him liable to be evicted. 5. The appeal is dismissed with costs.