( 1 ) THIS is an unfortunate litigation which has been pending for over 12 years. The petitioner before this Court is a land-lady. She instituted a petition under S. 8 (2) (i) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation control Act, 1951 (Mysore Act 30 of 1951) hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act, praying that the tenant, who is the respondent in this case, should be evicted from the premises in question on the ground that he had fallen into arrears in payment of rent and that he had committed default in the payment of rents over a course of long period. The petitioner contended that the rent for the premises, payable by the respondent, was att the rate of Rs. 60 per month on the basis of a lease deed executed on 31-8-1956. Calculated at that rate, the respondent was in arrears of rent. It appears that after the petition was filed into Court, an order was made by the munsiff under S. 8a of the 1951 Act for payment of the arrears of rent and current rent during the pendency of the petition regularly. The respondent paid the amount in accordance with the order. ( 2 ) THE respondent contended that he had not committed any default in the payment of rent and even though there was any default in the payment of rents, there was a sufficient cause for non-payment of rents and that under the first proviso to S. 8 (2) of the 1951 Act, the petition was liable to be dismissed on his paying all the amount found to be due by him. The learned Munsiff who heard this case came to the conclusion that the petititioner was entitled to the relief under the provisions of the 1951 Act and directed eviction of the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Bangalore, and the case came up before the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, who by his order dated 31-10-1968 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Munsiff. Against the said order of the District Judge, the petitioner has presented this revision petition under S. 17 of the 1951 Act. The scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 17 of the 1951 Act has been explained by the Supreme Court in M/s. Batchamian Sahib and Co. Against the said order of the District Judge, the petitioner has presented this revision petition under S. 17 of the 1951 Act. The scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 17 of the 1951 Act has been explained by the Supreme Court in M/s. Batchamian Sahib and Co. v. A. N. Channiah, C. A:452|62, SC. and haji Abdul Latif Tayub v. Haji Mohd. Ismil Saheb, C. A. 487/62 dt. 19-10-62 SC. According to the Supreme Court, on a true construction of the provisions of S. 17 of the 1951 Act, the jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court would be similar to or identical with the jurisdction of the High Court under S. 115 CPC. In the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court explaining the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court in revision, we have to examine the present case. ( 3 ) IT appears that the respondent was occupying the premises in question as a tenant even prior to 31-8-1956 on which date Ext. P-7 the lease deed referred to above came into existence. After this lease deed was executed the respondent is stated to have filed a petition under S. 4 of the 1951 Act for fixation of fair rent to the premises in question in F. R. No. 36 of 1956 on the file of the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Civil Station, bangalore. Before the fair rent could be fixed in that case, the respondent is stated to have withdrawn the petition. The result being, that there was no fixation of fair rent as such by the HR. and AC. It is brought out in the course of these proceedings that there was a panchayat in which the panchayatdars were requested to fix a reasonable rent for the premises out of Court. On the question that there was a panchayat, there is no disagreement between the parties. But the petitioner's case is that the panchayatdars fixed rs. 65 as a reasonable rent per month, but according to the respondent, they fixed it at Rs. 35 per month. Subsequent to the said panchayat, the petitioner instituted this petition out of which this revision petition arises on 17-10-1958. During the pendency of this petition before the Munsiff, the respondent, instituted an independent proceeding in HRC. FR. 301 of 1962 on the file of the House Rent Controller, Civil Station. 35 per month. Subsequent to the said panchayat, the petitioner instituted this petition out of which this revision petition arises on 17-10-1958. During the pendency of this petition before the Munsiff, the respondent, instituted an independent proceeding in HRC. FR. 301 of 1962 on the file of the House Rent Controller, Civil Station. Bangalore, under S. 14 of the Mysore Rent Control Act (Mysore Act 22 of 1961), 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act, for fixation of fair rent for the premises in question. The House Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 45 per month. The appeal filed by the petitioner against that order in HRCA. No. 100 of 1967 before the First Additional District Judge, bangalore, was unsuccessful. The petitioner filed CRP. No. 1370 of 1968 on the file of this Court against the said appellate order, which came to be dismissed by this Court on 27-5-1970. In these proceedings, the fair rent of Rs. 45 was fixed with effect from 29-12-1962. ( 4 ) THE learned District Judge who heard the appeal out of which this revision petition arises, came to the conclusion that the respondent had shown sufficient cause for not paying rents regularly and hence the order of eviction passed by the Munsiff was unsustainable. Mr. Farukhi,. the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged two main points in this revision petition. His first submission was that the learned District Judge was wrong in taking into consideration the proceedings in which the fair rent was fixed in respect of the premises under the 1961 Act According to Mr. Farukhi the proceedings which were commenced by the respondent under s. 14 of the 1961 Act were void and of no effect for the reason that 1hey were without jurisdiction. The argument of Mr. Farukhi was that under s. 4 of the 1951 Act, the rights of the parties with regard to the rent payable for the premises got crystallised on the filing of the petition in F. R. No. 36 of 1956 by the respondent That petition having been withdrawn, according to Mr. The argument of Mr. Farukhi was that under s. 4 of the 1951 Act, the rights of the parties with regard to the rent payable for the premises got crystallised on the filing of the petition in F. R. No. 36 of 1956 by the respondent That petition having been withdrawn, according to Mr. Farukhi, the respondent was debarred from instituting a fresh peition for fixation of fair rent He also relied on the second proviso to S. 4 (1) of the 1951 Act which laid down that no application for fixation of fair rent should be entertained if it was presented after a period of three months from the date of commencement of tenancy or date of enhancement of rent, if any, demanded and paid There appears to be no substance in this contention. S. 14 of the 1961 Act reads:"14. Fixation of fair rent, etc.- (1) The landlord or tenant of any building, other than a building in respect of which the fair rent has been fixed either before or after the coming into operation of this act, may make an application to the Controller for fixing the fair rent of the building,- (a) in the case of any building which was let before the date of coming into operation of this Part, within one year from such date. " ( 5 ) IT is not disputed that the application under S 14 of the 1961 Act was filed within one year from the date on which the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, came into force. A reading of the section extracted above would show that in the case of a building which had been let prior to the coming into force of the 1961 Act, a petition for fixation of fair rent could be filed if no fair rent had been fixed earlier in respect of the premises. The expression 'fair rent' has been defined in S 3 (f) of the 1961 Act as meaning the fair rent fixed under S 14 and also the fair rent or standard rent fixed under any Act repealed by S 62. The 1951 Act is one such Act which was repealed by S. 62 of the 1961 Act The question now is whether on an earlier occasion when a petition was presented to the HR. The 1951 Act is one such Act which was repealed by S. 62 of the 1961 Act The question now is whether on an earlier occasion when a petition was presented to the HR. and AC m 1956, a fair rent for the premises came to be fixed at all. As stated earlier the petition was withdrawn and it was dismissed The Rent Controller did not proceed to fix fair rent. The same argument was raised by the petitioner before this Court in CRP No 1370 of 1968 and this Court rejected the said contention and held that the petition under S. 14 of the 1961 Act was maintainable in view of the fact that no fair rent had been fixed earlier. Apart from the interpretation to be given to the provisions of S. 14 of the 1961 Act, the petitioner has to get over another hurdle, namely, the judgment m crp. No. 1370 of 1968 between the same parties in respect of the same premises and m which the same question came to be heard and decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction If that judgment is binding on the parties, then there would be nothing wrong m giving effect to that judgment in the course of these proceedings where arrears due by the tenant to the landlord would have to be computed Mr. Farukhi tried to get over the bar created by the decision m CRP. No. 1370 of 1968 by contending that all those proceedings commencing with the petition before the House rent Controller under S. 14 of the 1961 Act and ending with CRP. No. 1370 of 1968, were all without jurisdiction and hence were void and of no effect and that this case should be decided independently of them. In order to establish that the proceedings under S. 14 of the 1961 Act were without jurisdiction, Mr. Farukhi relied on the provisions of S. 62 of the 1961 Act and the provisions of S. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1899, which has been expressly made applicable by that section. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in A. N. Channiah v. M/s. A. Batchmiah Sahib and co. , Revtow Pet. 42/62, SC. and haji Mohd. Ismail Saheb v. Haji Abdul Latif Tayub, Raview Petn. 43|62 dt- 22-1-63. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in A. N. Channiah v. M/s. A. Batchmiah Sahib and co. , Revtow Pet. 42/62, SC. and haji Mohd. Ismail Saheb v. Haji Abdul Latif Tayub, Raview Petn. 43|62 dt- 22-1-63. to which their Lordships, while construing S. 62 of the 1961 Act, stated as follows: "clauses (a) to (e) of S. 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act apply to all cases of repeal unless a different intention appears in the repealing Act. Far from expressing a different intention, the proviso to S. 62 of the repealing Act says expressly that S. 6 of the General clauses Act is to apply to the repeal of the earlier Act. There is also" no saving in respect of any of the clauses (a) to (e) of that section and thus all of them apply S. 6 when read in the context of this case says that the repeal is not to affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired by, accrued to or incurred by the parties or to affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation or liability and that any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced as if the repealing Act had not been passed. If there was a right, obligation or liability which was acquired, accrued or incurred under the Mysore act 3 of 1951, then all legal proceedings and remedies in respect thereof ara not affected and can be instituted, continued or enforced "as if the repealing Act had not been passed. The last nine words which have been taken from clause (e) are the key words and they only mean that in respect of rights, obligations, or liabilities, acquired, accrued or incurred under the earlier Act, the repealing Act need not be read and legal proceedings and remedies are to continue under the repealed act according to its tenor. " ( 6 ) IN this judgment the Supreme Court was dealing with the question of the right of litigants who were parties to the proceedings commenced under the 1951 Act in the context of the provisions regarding appeals and revision. It is, therefore, clear that S. 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act has to be applied to the present case also. It is, therefore, clear that S. 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act has to be applied to the present case also. The question, therefore, is what would be the effect of S. 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act on the power of the Controller to fix fair rent under S. 14 of the 1961 Act in respect of premises let out prior to the coming into force of the 1961 Act. S. 6 of the mysore General Clauses Act reads as follows:"where this Act or any Mysore Act made after the commencement of this Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not- (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anthing duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred In respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation; legal proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 7 ) IT is clear from S. 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act that in the absence of an intention being expressed by the Legislature to the contrary, a repeal of an earlier Act would not take away rights and liabilities which had been either acquired or incurred before such repeal. S. 14 of the 1961 Act provides for fixation of fair rent not merely in respect of buildings which were to be let out after the Act came into force, but also in respect pf buildings which had been let out prior to the coming into force of the said act. The Legislature was aware of the provisions of S. 4 of the 1951 Act which debarred institution of proceedings for fixation of fair rent under that Act in respect of premises beyond three months after the commencement of tenancy or after the coming into force of the Act whichever was later. The Legislature was aware of the provisions of S. 4 of the 1951 Act which debarred institution of proceedings for fixation of fair rent under that Act in respect of premises beyond three months after the commencement of tenancy or after the coming into force of the Act whichever was later. Yet the Legislature proceeded to enact S. 14 of the 1961 Act authorising the filing of petition for fixation of fair rent in respect of premises which had been let out prior to the coming into force of the said Act when no fair rent had been fixed under the repealed Act. In this view of the matter, the contention of Mr. Farukhi that his client, by virtue of S. 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, had acquired an indefeasible right to get rent at the rate of Re. 60 after the withdrawal of the application for fixation of fair rent in F. R. No. 36 of 1956, would become untenable. Hence, the decision of the Supreme Court is of no assistance to the petitioner. The house Rent Controller did have the jurisdiction to entertain this petition under S. 14 of the 1961 Act and the orders passed in appeal and revision against those proceedings are not without jurisdiction. They are valid and are binding on the parties. ( 8 ) MR. FARUKHI also referred to a decision of this Court in vishwanath v. Basappa Appayya, 1959 Mys. L. J. 883. and two decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Babu dhirendranath Roy v. Ijjetali Miah, AIR. 1940 Cal. 423. and Jatindra Nath De v. Jetu mahato, AIR. 1946 Cal. 339. What is staled above in respect of the decision of the Supreme court would also apply to the submission made on the basis of the three decisions referred to above. In none of these cases, was there any need for the Courts to interpret a provision like S. 14 of the 1961 Act which expressly authorised fixation of fair rent in respect of premises let out earlier in which a different intention had been expressed by the Legislature on the repealing Act. Hence these decisions are beside the point. In none of these cases, was there any need for the Courts to interpret a provision like S. 14 of the 1961 Act which expressly authorised fixation of fair rent in respect of premises let out earlier in which a different intention had been expressed by the Legislature on the repealing Act. Hence these decisions are beside the point. If, therefore, proceedings instituted by the respondent for fixation of fair rent are valid and a final decision has been given in those proceedings by this Court, it would not be open to the petitioner to contend that the District Judge was wrong in taking into account the result of those proceedings while deciding this case. ( 9 ) THE next submission of Mr. Farukhi was that the finding of the District judge that the respondent had sufficient cause for not paying the rents regularly was wrong and is liable to be set aside. He contended that the monthly rent had been agreed upon by the parties under the deed of 1956, that that was the rent payable every month; and that there was no justification for the respondent to delay payment of the rents. I have been taken through the order of the learned District Judge. He has given reasons for coming to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for the default in payment of rents. He has referred to the evidence relating to rent which was being paid prior to 31-8-1956 and the evidence relating to what took place after the lease deed came into existence. He has referred to the pan- chayat which took place regarding the fixation of reasonable rent. He hag also relied on the evidence adduced in this case which showed when money was sent by postal money order by the respondent to the petitioner, the petitioner had refused to receive such money orders. He has taken into account the evidence available in the case including the fact that fair rent had been fixed at Rs. 45 per month for the premises in question and has come to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for default in the payment of rents. He has taken into account the evidence available in the case including the fact that fair rent had been fixed at Rs. 45 per month for the premises in question and has come to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for default in the payment of rents. This finding of fact arrived at by the District Judge is not liable to be interfered with under the provisions of S. 17 of the 1951 Act, which as I have already stated earlier, is similar to the provisions of S. 115, code of Civil Procedure. ( 10 ) MR. Farukhi next referred to some observations made by the learned district Judge with regard to the inference that should be drawn from the fact of non-production of account books of Jayaram Pillai with whom the respondent had associated himself as a partner before Jayaram Pillai's death which took place some time in 1950 December. Mr. Farukhi was asked to show from the evidence of the respondent whether he had admitted expressly anywhere in the course of his depositions that he had custody of those account books, but he was not able to show from any portion of the deposition that the respondent had custody of the account books. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been any wrong appreciation of evidence by the District Judge. ( 11 ) MR. Farukhi lastly contended that the respondent had committed default in payment of rent after the institution of the petition in the year 1958 upto the year 1962. I am informed that these defaults were subject matter of proceedings under S. 8a of the 1951 Act, some of which were ultimately determined in this Court. ( 12 ) IN the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that no case has been made out to interfere with the order of the learned District Judge. The petition is dismissed with costs. --- *** --- .