SHAH BANMUL SOANMUL Vs. SHAH HARAKCHAND ROOPCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of Lakshmana Rao, J., who dismissed an appeal in execution against the order of the learned Chief Judge of the City Civil Court. The subject -matter of the application in execution was an order for possession to be delivered which was made pursuant to the provisions of the Madras House Rent Contol Order, 1945. The appellant is the tenant of No. 28, Govindappa Naick Street, Madras, in respect of which an order, to which reference is made below, for possession was passed.

(2.) THE relevant facts are the following: Under the provisions of the Madras Rent Control Order, the landlord, who is the respondent before us, made an application for an order for possession to be given to him, to the Rent Controller. On January 31, 1946, that application was dismissed. An appeal by the landlord against the dismissal was preferred to the Collector who, when the Control Order was in force was the appellate authority. That appeal was dismissed on April 16, 1946. On May 1, following, the landlord presented a petition to the Provincial Government of Madras pursuant to Clause 8(2 -A) in revision to set aside the dis -missal of his application and praying for an order for possession. No notice of that petition was given to the tenant, the appellant here, no opportunity was afforded to him to be heard in the revision proceedings, but the matter was disposed of by the. Government in the absence of the tenant and while he was in ignorance of the pro -ceedings which were being taken. On September 30, 1946, an order was made setting aside the previous dismissal of the application and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises on or before November 11, 1946. The tenant was unaware of the order which had been made by the Government until some time later. In purported pursuance of the provisions in that behalf, the landlord applied to the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court to execute the order in his favour directing possession of the premises to be given to him. The learned Principal City Civil Judge, directed execution to issue and, as previously stated, an appeal to this Court was dismissed by Lakshmana Rao, J., and hence this Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) ON behalf of the appellant, it was contended that there is no authority, statu -tory or otherwise, enabling execution to be had in respect of the cider which was passed by the Government pursuant to the Control Order which expired on September 30, 1946. There were several other contentions raised in support of the appeal; but, in light of the conclusion to which one has arrived in regard to that stated, it is unnecessary to consider the other contentions.