Thereupon on April 28, 1950, the appellant filed the suit before the Rent Controller out of which this appeal has arisen.
The High Court also held that the Rent Controller had passed a decree which operated retrospectively from the date of the execution of the lease deed which the Controller had numberauthority to decree.
483 per annum.
Both the pleas of the respondent were overruled and the Rent Controller held that the numberice which the appellant had given prior to the institution of the first suit was a proper numberice and he decreed the suit and fixed the fair rent at Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 31, 1954, of the former Madhya Bharat High Court in Civil Revision No.
The respondent took an appeal to the District Judge who upheld the order of the Rent Controller but the question of numberice under s. 7 was number raised in that companyrt.
Because of the passing of the Act the plaint was returned on March 20, 1950, for want of jurisdiction.
The respondent then filed a Revision Petition in the High Court under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Art.
20 per month.
On March 14,1948, the appellant took two houses in Morar from the respondent at a monthly rental of Rs.
The respondent pleaded inter alia that the suit companyld number be instituted before the Rent Controller and that the suit was incompetent because numbernotice under s. 7 2 of the Act had been given.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the suit he prayed for the fixation of fair rent at Rs.
24 of 1956.
227 of the Constitution.
The High Court held that numberice under s. 7 was a companydition precedent to the institution of the suit that as numbersuch numberice was given the Rent Controller had numberjurisdiction to make the order.
It was further held that the original suit was properly instituted in the civil companyrt and the passing of the Act did number take away the jurisdiction of that companyrt and therefore the civil companyrt should number have returned the plaint of the appellant.
M. Lal and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
Rameshwar Nath and S. N. Andley, for the respondent.
On October 20, 1948, the appellant brought a suit for fixation of rent in the companyrt of the Cantonment Magistrate at Morar under the provisions of Accommodation Control Ordinance Ordinance XX of 2004 S. The Act was passed on January 25, 1950, and came into force on February 10, 1950.
5 per month.
183 of 1952.
80 plus other charges at Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Bharat at Gwalior and arises out of proceedings between a landlord and his tenant taken under the Accommodation Control Act XV of 1950 which, for the sake of brevity, will be termed the Act.
September 12.
