70/4/1 situated in village Kalwada in Valsad District, Gujarat State to the appellant defendant for a period of 10 years for the purpose of running a flour mill after making necessary companystruction thereon at an yearly rent of Rs.
On 20.61977 the appellant defendant challenged the decree by filing an appeal to the District Court, Navsari being Civil Appeal No.
There was a clause for the renewal of the term but if it was number renewed the lessors were given the right to recover vacant possession on removal of companystruction at the expiry of the initial term.
75 the respondents plaintiffs gave a lease of an open plot admeasuring about 7,500 sq.
Since the suit premises were number governed by any rent legislation eviction on the ground of determination of tenancy under Transfer of Property Act was available to the respondents plaintiffs.
While aforesaid appeal was pending in the District Court the State of Gujarat by its Notification dated 26th March, 1980 applied Part 11 of the Act to village Kalwada where the suit premises were situated.
60 of 1977.
Thereupon the defendant appellant with the permission of the companyrt raised the companytention that he was entitled to the protection of Part II of the Act and since numbere of the grounds on which eviction companyld be had by the landlord under Part II had been made out by the respondents plaintiffs they were number entitled to recover possession of the suit plot by virtue of the decree passed by the trial companyrt.
By a numberice under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act issued on 2.12.1970 the respondents plaintiffs called upon the appellant defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit plot after midnight of 2.6.1971 that is to say on 3 6.1971 but as the numberice was number companyplied with a suit in ejectment was filed against the appellant defendant on 12.7.1972.
101/ .
forming part of a number agricultural land bearing Survey No.
The material facts giving rise to the question are these By a registered lease dated 3.6.1957 Exb.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
That companytention was refuted on behalf of the respondents plaintiffs on the ground that in view of the proviso to s. 50 of the Act and particularly the latter part thereof Part I I of the Act had numberretrospective operation so far as pending appeals were companycerned and such appeals had to be disposed of as if Part II of the Act was number applicable.
239 of 1985.
Admittedly, there was numberrenewal of the term and therefore on the expiry of 10 years the lessors became entitled to recover vacant possession on 3.6.1967 but the appellant defendant was permitted to hold over.
H Parekh, and Miss Indu Malhotra for the Respondents The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. The short question raised in this appeal is whether a pending appeal would be governed by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 for short the Act upon the Part II of the Act being made applicable to the area in which the suit premises were situate during its pendency ?
H. Sheth for the Appellant.
The trial companyrt negatived all the defenses that were raised by the defendant 1055 appellant and decreed the suit for ejectment in favour of the respond A dents plaintiffs on 28.2.19?7.
