Case Note & Summary
The appellant (original defendant) and respondent (original plaintiff) were parties to a suit for eviction. The plaintiff claimed ownership of a constructed portion on Plot Nos. 109/2, 110 and 111/1 at Pandharkawada, received in a partition in 1969. The suit house was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.175/- under an oral lease. The plaintiff, needing accommodation, initiated proceedings before the Rent Controller for permission to issue a quit notice under Clause 13(3) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendant filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raising the substantial question of law whether the suit for eviction was maintainable without prior permission of the Rent Controller. The High Court examined the facts and found that the Rent Control Order had ceased to apply to the premises because the defendant had vacated and the plaintiff had re-let the premises on a fresh oral lease. Consequently, the requirement of obtaining prior permission under Clause 13(3) was not attracted. The Court answered the substantial question of law in the negative, holding that the suit was maintainable, and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction Suit - Maintainability - C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, Clause 13(3) - The suit for eviction was filed after the Rent Control Order had ceased to apply to the premises as the defendant had vacated and the plaintiff had re-let the premises on a fresh oral lease. The Court held that the Rent Controller's permission was not required for filing the eviction suit. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law regarding the necessity of prior permission from the Rent Controller. The Court answered the question in the negative, holding that the suit was maintainable. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was entitled to file the suit for eviction against the appellant without obtaining prior permission of the rent controller under C.P. Berar Letting of Premises & Rent Control Order, 1949?
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The substantial question of law is answered in the negative, holding that the suit for eviction was maintainable without prior permission of the Rent Controller.
Law Points
- Eviction suit maintainability
- Rent control exemption
- C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order
- 1949
- Clause 13(3) permission
- Oral lease
- Section 100 CPC
