NANDLAL Vs. MOTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dated December 16, 1974, the only question which has been raised for our consideration is whethr the provisions of Clause 13 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order, were applicable to the plaintiff-respondents's suit for the eviction of the defendatns - appellants from the house and ota situated in Tiroda. That clause forms parts of Chapter II and prohibits the determining of a lease without the previous written permission of the Controller.

(2.) The Rent Control Order was issued on July 26, 1949. The State Government issued, at the same time, a notification under S.2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accomodation Act, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the Act, directing inter alia, that Chapter I of the Rent Control Order shall extend to the whole of the Central Provinces and Berar (and the States integrated with the Central Provinces and Berar) and chapters II and IV shall extend to, -

(3.) The plaintiff raised a suit for the eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on May 2, 1963, without obtaining the Controller's permission under Clause 13 of the Rent Control Order. The short npoint of controversy is whether the notification dated June 12, 1956 declaring Tiroda to be a Muncipality could attract the provisions of the Rent Control Order by virtue of the notification dated July 26,, 1949. The High Court has taken the view that as a fresh notification was not issued under Section 2 of the Act when the Tiroda Municipality was constituted on June 12, 1956, the provisions of the Rent Control Order did not "automatically become applicable to premises within the limits of a new Munincipality by virtue of the notification of 1949."