Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

There is no doubt that the suit was pending when the Rent Control Order was repealed and the new Act came into force. Effect of such repeal no doubt entitles one, to evict a tenant by filing a suit under the common law in respect of a open plot of land. Shri Joshi learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the Court must take notice of the law as existing on the date of suit/on the date of decision of the appeal. He submits that if position as on the date of passing of decree is considered, there is no restriction on landlord's right to issue notice and to institute a suit. Shri Joshi submits that because the Rent Control Order is no more in existence on the date of passing of the decree, there is no impediment in passing decree as open plot of land is not governed by the Maharashtra Rent Act. He submits that even though the plaintiff may not be having the right to terminate the tenancy in 1993 but he has a right to maintain such a suit on the date the Court is deciding the suit and therefore Courts below have rightly passed a decree. He submits that the law as on the date of decree or date of decision in appeal should be considered by the Court. He relied on the decision reported in A. I. R. 1959 Supreme Court 577 Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami Vs. Setra Veeravva and Others . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that appellate Court is entitled to take into consideration the change in law. The Supreme Court was considering the question as to whether the provisions of Hindu Succession Act 1956 could be taken into consideration while deciding the appeal before the Supreme Court since the Act came into force while appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. The facts of the reported case are not akin. The decision reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court 396 Qudrat Ullah Vs. Municipal Board Bareily was also cited by him. I propose to deal with this decision later on. Shri Joshi had cited two other decisions of this Court to me. One of them is reported in 2006(2) of All Maharashtra Reporter 133 Maharaji wd/o Bajrangi Vishwakarma & Ors. Vs. Sayeedabi w/o Haji Sayyad Gani . The other is a judgment in Civil Revision decided by Shri B. P. Dharmadhikari J. at Nagpur on 29.08.2008. These two decisions have no bearing on the case at hand. These decisions do not have any bearing because of the fact that when both suits were instituted and tenancy was terminated the amended definition of the word premises in C. P. & Berar Rent Control Order had not come into operation. The amendment to Clause 4(A) i.e. the amendment to word definition of premises came into force when the suit were pending and the Rent Control Order was repealed and when the appeals were pending. It is obvious that in both cases the date on which the tenancy was terminated and suit was instituted there was no restriction/embargo on the landlord's right to evict as the open plots of land were not governed on those dates. Landlords therefore have had a right on the date of termination of tenancy and on the date of institution of suit to terminate the tenancy and to institute a suit without the permission of the Rent Controller. It is clear from the judgments of this Court referred to above that in Jamnadas case civil suit was filed in 1984 while in Maharaji Bai the suit was filed on 28.11.1985. Thus when both the suits were filed, both the landlords did not suffer from any handicap in terminating the tenancy and instituting a suit.