JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant against some military officers for rent of a bungalow in the Agra Cantonment. The bungalow was occupied by the defendants as a mess house from the 15th August 1920. They did not find it necessary to apply to the Cantonment authority in order to get possession, but having occupied the house they wrote to the plaintiff informing him that they had done so and proposed to pay the registered rent of Rs. 60 a month. It was open to the plaintiff to reply that he was not willing for them to enter upon the house at that rent and that any occupation by the defendants was without his consent. Instead of doing this he merely protested that the registered rant was too low and did nothing further. Subsequently the defendants complained to the plaintiff of the state of repairs of the house and ultimately they moved the Cantonment authority to issue a notice to the plaintiff under Section 19(1), Cantonments House Accommodation Act.
2. Thereupon the plaintiff under Sub-section (2) of Section 19 required that the matter of repairs be referred to a Committee of Arbitration. He at the same time raised, under Section 21, the question of the rent; being enhanced. The rent was ultimately enhanced by the Committee of Arbitration. It is the appellant's contention that the rate so fixed should operate from the date of the commencement of the tenancy and ho invokes Section 18(3) for this purpose. Section 18 however only refers to the case where rent is fixed by the Committee of Arbitration upon a requisition by the owner at the very commencement of the tenancy. In this case the owner did not raise the question of rant until the tenancy had commenced and he had been served with a notice for repairs. The tenancy must be deemed to have commenced from the date of occupation by the officers, inasmuch as the plaintiff,, although informed of such occupation, did not object to the occupation, but merely by informal correspondence asked for the raising of rent. His proper course would have been to inform the officers that they were not entitled to occupy the house unless the owner was first served with a notice by the Cantonment authority, requiring him to place the house at their disposal. In that case the owner would have been in a position under Section 28(1) of the Act to have a Committee of Arbitration convened to fix the rent from the date of the commencement of the tenancy. The facts being as stated, we consider that the findings of the lower Court were correct and that this appeal should be dismissed with costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale.