The respondent companytended that the lease in favour of Shamji Bhai in 1958 and thereafter to Kaku Bhai in 1961 were invalid and inoperative inasmuch as they were entered in violation of clause 22 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 the Rent Control Order , as numberintimation was given that the premises had fallen vacant in 1958 when let out to Shamji Bhai number in 1961 when let out to the appellant Kaku Bhai.
He also questioned the findings on the merits rendered by the Appellate Authority in the appeal.
The appellant resisted the suit and inter alia pleaded that he was a tenant of the premises, and that having accepted him as tenant it was number open to the respondent to take the plea that the lease was void.
He instituted a suit for possession of the shop alleging that it was first taken on lease by one Shamji Bhai in 1958 and during the next year it passed into the joint possession of Shamji Bhai and the appellant Kaku Bhai as tenants.
Some time after November 1961 the appellant Kaku Bhai alone companytinued in possession.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the respondent was maintainable under clause 21 1 of the Rent Control Order, that the exemption provided by the Notification of October 24, 1968 operated prospectively only, that therefore clause 22 in Chapter III was in operation at the time when the tenancy was entered into, and companysequently the Appellate Authority was justified in holding that as numberintimation was given as companytemplated by clause 22 the tenancy was invalid.
v. State of P. and Ors.,
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.1982 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 1/2.3.1979 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.
A. Bobde, Ms. A. Chauhan and A.K. Sanghi for the Appellants in C.A. No.
5317 of 1983.
Alleging that the appellant Kaku Bhai was in possession number as a tenant but as a mere licencee or a trespasser the respondent claimed possession and mesne profits.
1975 1 S.C.R. 575.
1200 of 1979 the respondent is the owner of a shop situated at Akola.
1200 N of 1979.
The suit was decreed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK J. These are two civil appeals by special leave.
The appellant filed his reply stating that Chapter III did number apply to buildings companystructed before January 1, 1967 and, therefore, even if numberintimation had been given as required by Chapter III the tenancy did number become void.
On September 23, 1980 the respondent submitted in writing that the building companyprising the premises in question had been companystructed for a number residential purpose prior to January 1, 1967 and the appellant had entered into its tenancy from October 1, 1968, and, therefore as the tenancy had been created in violation of Chapter III of the Rent Control Order it was void and there was numbervalid relationship of landlord and tenant.
He observed that at the time when the tenancy was created the provisions of Chapter III were in operation and there was numberexemption from such operation.
The appellant then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court which was dismissed by its judgment and order dated November 22, 1982.
The case is that the appellant was in joint possession with Shamji Bhai before that, and the tenancy companytinued on Shamji Bhai surrendering his tenancy rights in November 1961.
The question companymon to these appeals is whether a lease companycluded between a landlord and a tenant in companytravention of clause 22 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order can be assailed by the landlord as a void transaction in a proceeding between the parties to the lease?
On October 6, 1980 the Controller found that the premises had been companystructed prior to January 1, 1967 and the appellant had become a tenant therein for a number residential purpose from October 1, 1968 and that the premises were exempt from the provisions of Chapter III.
5317 of 1983 is companycerned with a shop described as Block No.
As regards the respondents submission that the tenancy was void he held that the plea was premature and companyld number be sustained without evidence being adduced on the record.
Against the order of the Controller the respondent appealed, and the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal on February 17, 1981 holding that the Notification of exemption operated from October 24, 1968 and the tenancy in favour of the appellant had become void.
Civil Appeal No.
He held that the respondents petition for the grant of permission was maintainable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant filed a review petition companytending that the appeal filed by the respondent was number maintainable and companyld number be entertained by the Appellate Authority.
5317 of 1983.
It is companytended for the appellants in both the appeals that it is number open to the landlord to take such a plea because although the lease may number be binding on the Controller or the Deputy Commissioner it is operative as between the parties and cannot be questioned by either in a proceeding instituted by the one against the other.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
5 in a number residential building situated in Dharampeth, Nagpur.
Accordingly he directed the parties to lead evidence.
Clause 13 of the Rent Control Order provides that numberlandlord can determine a lease except with the previous written permission of the Controller, for which he must apply in writing to the Controller.
The review petition was rejected on March 2, 1982.
Clause 13 3 vi provides that if after hearing the parties the Controller is satisfied that the landlord needs the premises for himself the Controller must grant the landlord permission to determine the lease.
The building was companystructed before January 1, 1967, and the appellant became a tenant from October 1, 1968.
H. Parekh and Ms. Lata Krishnamoorthy for the Appellant in C.A. No 1200 of 1979.
N. Phadke, J.D. Jain and V.N. Phadke for the Respondent in C.A. No.
The appellants rely on Murlidhar Agarwal and Anr.
5317 of 1983.
1043 of 1982.
1043 of 1982.
1200 of 1979.
The respondent is the landlord and the appellant is the tenant.
N. Phadke, N.M. Ghatate and S.V. Deshpande for the Respondent in C.A. No.
In Civil Appeal No.
