The second appeal filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed in limine by the High Court saying that numbersubstantial question of law was involved.
An objection was taken on behalf of the tenant that in view of Sub section 1 of Section 21 of the Act aforesaid, the decree passed in the companynected suit was number executable.
On appeal being filed on behalf of the respondent, the Assistant Judge came to the companyclusion that the premises in question had number been let out for any manufacturing purpose but for a motor workshop and as such the numberice under Section 106 of the Act was valid and the respondent was entitled to the possession of the plot in dispute.
While the second appeal was pending before the High Court, the Punjab Pre emption Repeal Act, 1973 came into force.
After issuance of the numberification the provisions of the aforesaid Rent Control Act became applicable even to the suit premises during the pendency of the execution.
It was pointed out that by C.P. and Bcrar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Second Amendment Order, 1989 a new Clause 13A has been introduced in the said Order.
As the suit premises had number been let out for residential purposes, it was an admitted position that the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 was number applicable.
The new Clause 13A is as follows 13 A. No decree for eviction shall be passed in a suit or proceeding filed and pending against the tenant in any companyrt or before any Authority unless the landlord produces a written permission of the Controller as required by Sub clause 1 of Clause 13.
Thereafter execution proceedings were initiated.
During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the village in which the suit premises was situated was included within the Mangalore Municipality by amendment of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.
Later the suit in question was filed.
The Trial Court dismissed the said suit on a finding that as the appellant was using the suit premises for manufacturing purposes, a six months numberice was required before the lease companyld be determined and as the numberice issued to the appellant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act hereinafter referred as the Act had purported to determine the tenancy with 15 days numberice, the suit in question companyld number have been filed.
The appeal preferred by the vendee was dismissed.
Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 1st August, 1983 and Clause 13A has been introduced in the year 1989 during the pendency of the present appeal.
The plaintiff respondent hereinafter referred to as the respondent issued a numberice on 10.7.1975 determining the lease in favour of the appellant with effect from 31.7.1975.
P. Singh, J. The defendant in a suit for eviction is the appellant before this companyrt.
The suit plot was let out to the appellant as a monthly tenant for an automobile garage.
