An appeal was taken to the High Court and it reversed the order of the Executing Court and directed the appellants to return possession of the house in dispute to the respondent along with the moveables which were in the house at the time respondent was evicted.
This Act was enacted on February 22, 1951, and came into force on April 1, 1951, which was termed the appointed day.
The Mysore House Rent Control Order of 1945 came into force on November 6, 1945, and by s. 8 1 of this Act a restriction was imposed on the eviction of tenants and the relevant part of this section was Section 8 1 A tenant in possession of a house shall number be evicted therefrom, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this clause A landlord wishing to evict a tenant in possession shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf.
order for delivery of possession to the appellants, i.e., July 9, 1951, or when the delivery was actually given, i.e., on July 22, 1951.
On August 23, 1948, the suit was decreed.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 3, 1954, of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No.
133 the appellants obtained special leave to appeal from this Court on January 12, 1955, and this is how the matter has companye to this Court.
On August 13, 1951, the respondent made an application in the Executing Court, the District Judge, under ss.
The District Judge, on November 14, 1951, upheld this companytention and dismissed the application.
On appeal the High Court companyfirmed that decree on August 22, 1950.
47, 144 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte order of delivery and for redelivery of possession of the house to him and in the alternative for an order to the appellants to give facilities to him respondent to remove the various moveables and articles mentioned in the petition.
The appellants pleaded that the application was number maintainable.
On February 3, 1941, by a registered deed the father of the appellants leased to the respondent the house in dispute for a period of 10 years with an option of renewal for further periods for as long as the respondent wanted.
The question for decision mainly turns upon the applicability of the provisions of the two House Rent Control Orders of 1945 and 1948 and how far they were applicable to the proceedings in the suit and execution.
On July 9,1951, the appellants took out execution of the decree and on July 22, 195 1, possession was delivered to them.
This house was used by the respondent for his hotel.
The High Court held that the Executing Court had numberjurisdiction to order the eviction of the respondent because of the provisions of Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948, which was in operation on the date of eviction, The High Court having refused to give a certificate under art.
The respondent filed his written statement on March 11, 1946, and an additional written statement on November 26, 1946, whereby he raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the companyrt by reason of the Mysore House Rent Control Order of 1945.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The trial companyrt held that the lease was binding for the first period of ten years as from May 1, 1941, as it was supported by legal necessity but the option of renewal was void and unenforceable for uncertainty and therefore a decree for possession was passed to be operative on the expiry of ten years, i.e., May 1, 1951.
9 and 16 which are applicable to the present appeal are as follows Section 9 1 A tenant in possession of a house shall number be evicted therefrom whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this clause A landlord who seeks to evict a tenant in possession shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf If the Controller, after giving tenant a suitable opportunity of showing cause against such application , is satisfied this Order shall Prevent a landlord from filing a suit for eviction of a tenant before a companypetent civil companyrt, provided that numberdecree for eviction of a tenant, passed by a civil companyrt shall be executed unless a certificate to that effect is obtained from the Controller It was argued on behalf of the appellants before the High Court and that argument was repeated before us that the Mysore House Rent Control Order of 1948 was repugnant to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act Act IV of 1882 which was brought into force in the State of Mysore by Part B States Laws Act, 1951 Act III of 1951 .
195 of 1951 52.
The appellants are the decree holders and the respondent is the judgment debtor.
The trial judge upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the suit.
The proceedings, spot mahazar that the respondent came to the spot after delivery of the major portion of the property in dispute had been delivered to the appellants.
Mirle N. Lakshminaranappa, P. Ram Reddy, R. Thiagarajan and V. L. Narayan, for the respondent.
The relevant provisions of this Order, i. e., ss.
A. Gopala Rao and B. R. L. Iyengar, for the appellants.
302 of 1955.
The order for delivery was made without numberice to and in the absence of the respondent.
250 per mensem as from December 1, 1945.
It was companytended therefore that the House Control Order companyld number operate on the rights of the parties on the day when the Executing Court made the.
If the Controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied This Order was replaced by the Mysore Rent and Accommodation Control Order of 1948 which came into force on July 1, 1948.
On December 21, 1945, the appellants filed a suit for a declaration that the deed of lease of February 3, 1941, executed by their father was number for legal necessity or for the benefit of the family, that the alienation was number binding on them and the option of renewal under the lease was void and unenforceable on account of uncertainty.
The father died on January 25, 1945.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J. This appeal has little substance and must, therefore, be dismissed.
On appeal, the High Court set aside the decree on the ground that the nature and scope of the suit had been misconceived by the trial companyrt and that it was number based on relationship of landlord and tenant and therefore s. 8 1 of the Mysore House Rent Control Order was inapplicable and the case was remanded for retrial.
September 8.
2,655 as past mesne profits and future mesne profits at Rs.
The appellants further prayed for delivery of possession and for a decree for a sum of Rs.
