Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal by the defendant, Shankar s/o Ratiram Bhure, against the decree of ejectment passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court in a suit filed by the plaintiff, Smt. Seetadevi w/o Vishnukumar Modi. The plaintiff claimed that she had let out the suit premises to the defendant for a fixed term from 1-3-1993 to 31-1-1994 at a monthly rent of Rs. 800, with an agreement that the defendant would vacate at the expiry of the term and pay damages of Rs. 50 per day for overstay. Despite a notice dated 22-1-1994, the defendant did not vacate, leading to the suit. The defendant denied being the plaintiff's tenant, claiming he was a tenant of the plaintiff's husband since 1978. The trial court held in favor of the plaintiff, and the appeal was dismissed. The second appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law: (1) whether the suit was maintainable without permission from the Rent Controller under the C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order to issue a quit notice, and (2) whether the judgment and decree were a nullity for lack of jurisdiction under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The High Court held that since the lease was for a fixed term, it expired by efflux of time, and no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was required; therefore, permission from the Rent Controller was not necessary. The court also held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit, and the decree was not a nullity. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ejectment Suit - Maintainability - Lease for Fixed Term - The suit for ejectment based on a lease for a fixed term from 1-3-1993 to 31-1-1994 is maintainable without permission from the Rent Controller under C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949, as the lease expired by efflux of time and no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was required. The court held that the requirement of permission to issue quit notice applies only when a notice under Section 106 is necessary, which is not the case for a fixed-term lease. (Paras 6-7) B) Jurisdiction - Civil Court - Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - The suit for ejectment filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is not without jurisdiction, as the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try suits for possession, and the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 do not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters. The court held that the decree is not a nullity. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit as framed and filed by the respondent is maintainable in absence of permission from the Rent Controller under C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order to issue quit notice to the appellant? Whether the Judgment & Decree passed by both the Courts below is a nullity and without jurisdiction as it is passed by the Court which has no jurisdiction under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 to entertain and try the suits for ejectment, possession & wrongful occupation charges?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal with no order as to costs, upholding the decree of ejectment.
Law Points
- Lease for fixed term
- Section 106 Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order
- 1949
- maintainability of suit
- jurisdiction of Civil Court
- Small Cause Courts Act
- 1887
