Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the judgment of the District Court which confirmed the decree for possession passed by the trial court in favour of the respondent-landlord. The suit property was originally owned by Shri Ramratan Shrivallabh Chandak, who obtained permission from the Rent Controller under clause 13(3)(vii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 to terminate the tenancy. The permission was confirmed in appeal and became final. Thereafter, the landlord issued a notice dated 19th June 1974 terminating the tenancy with effect from 31st July 1974. Since the tenant did not vacate, the landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No.666/1974 in October 1974. During the pendency of the suit, the property was transferred to the respondent No.1 Trust. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appeal was dismissed. The tenant then filed the present writ petition. The High Court noted that the permission to terminate the tenancy had attained finality and the tenant had no defence. The court also observed that the writ petition was admitted in 2005 and pending for final hearing, so it was taken up without delving into the issue of maintainability. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Permission to Terminate Tenancy - Clause 13(3)(vii) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 - The Rent Controller granted permission to the landlord to terminate the tenant's tenancy under clause 13(3)(vii), which was confirmed in appeal and became final. The landlord then issued a valid notice terminating tenancy and filed a suit for possession. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appeal was dismissed. The tenant's writ petition challenging the decree was dismissed as the permission had attained finality and the tenant had no defence. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the District Court granting possession to the landlord is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Permission to terminate tenancy under Rent Control Order
- Clause 13(3)(vii) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order
- 1949
- Tenant's challenge to eviction decree
- Maintainability of writ petition against appellate decree
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (12) 120
Writ Petition No.6454/2005
Shri P.Y. Deshpande for petitioner, Shri J.J. Chandurkar for respondent no.1
Rajendra Antharam Tijoriwala and Gujrathi
Takhatmal Shrivallabh Charitable Trust, Retired Justice Krishna Kumar Dube, Dr. Gowardhandas Sharma, Waman Pralhad Pande, Popat Amritlal Tijoriwala
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment of the District Court confirming the decree for possession passed by the trial court in a suit for eviction.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (tenant) sought to set aside the judgment and decree for possession passed by the District Court.
Filing Reason
The tenant challenged the eviction decree on the ground that the permission to terminate tenancy was not validly obtained.
Previous Decisions
The Rent Controller granted permission to terminate tenancy under clause 13(3)(vii) of the Rent Control Order, which was confirmed in appeal and became final. The trial court decreed the suit for possession, and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the District Court granting possession to the landlord is sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside.
The respondent no.1 supported the impugned judgment and decree.
Ratio Decidendi
The permission to terminate the tenancy under clause 13(3)(vii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 had attained finality, and the tenant had no defence to the eviction suit. The writ petition challenging the decree was therefore dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
The petition is by the tenant challenging the judgment passed by the District Court granting decree for possession and ancillary reliefs in favour of the respondents.
The permission granted by the Rent Controller was confirmed in the appeal and it became final.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Procedural History
The landlord obtained permission from the Rent Controller under clause 13(3)(vii) of the Rent Control Order to terminate the tenancy, which was confirmed in appeal. The landlord issued a notice terminating tenancy and filed Regular Civil Suit No.666/1974 in October 1974. The trial court decreed the suit. The tenant appealed, and the District Court dismissed the appeal. The tenant then filed the present writ petition in 2005.
Acts & Sections
- C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949: Clause 13(3)(vii)
