SHIOPRASAD RAMESHWAR DUBEY Vs. SMITA BALWANTRAO SHENDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common question that arises in these two appeals is as to whether House No. 190 in Bajaj Ward, Deoli, Tahsil and District Wardha is exempt from the provisions of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'The House Rent Control Order').

(2.) The landlady respondent (original plaintiff) filed two suits against two different tenants appellants (original defendants). On 18.9-1972, the plaintiff issued notices purporting to terminate the residential tenancies contending that as the house was constructed in the year 1967, it was exempt from the provisions of the House Rent Control Order. This was followed by a suit filed in Nov. 1972 in which 1957 was shown to be the year of construction. After about four years, the plaint was amended contending that the house property was purchased on or before 8th Aug., 1957, by one Dr. Pal in Court auction for Rs. 3000. It was a school building in a dilapidated condition. It was pulled down and new residential blocks were constructed in its place from the foundation. The defendants' main defence was that the same old house is standing since 1937 and Dr. Pal had only made certain repairs and internal changes in the house. The plaintiff who is a purchaser of the property for a sum of Rs. 5,000 under a registered sale deed dated 26-6-1972 did not enter into witness box but examined Dr. Pal, the vendor. The defendants also entered into witness-box and adduced other oral evidence. No documentary evidence whatsoever excepting the notices prior to the suit are filed on record. The trial Court recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiff decreeing both the suits for possession holding that the house property was not governed by the House Rent Control Order and therefore, prior permission for terminating the tenancy was not required. This finding has been confirmed in appeals, taken at the instance of the tenants. The present appeals are directed against these concurring judgments.

(3.) That, Deoli is a municipal town since the year 1937, and when in the year 1957 the property was purchased by Dr. Pal, it was a school building, is an admitted position by now. Dr. Pal admitted that he maintains account books. According to him, a sum of Rs. 3,000 was spent on the new construction which was made alter the complete demolition of the old school building. When actually the construction had started and when it was finished is not stated in his evidence even by approximation. All that he says is that the construction was made after the year 1957 when he purchased the school building. He also has admitted that in spite of the provisions of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C. P. Act'), no plan of the construction was submitted and no permission was obtained. His explanation is that at time, no such permission was necessary. Dr. Pal purchased the property for a sum of Rs. 3.000 and after a lapse of over 15 years, during which the prices of the house properties increased, he sold this very property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5,000. If Dr. Pal is to be believed, he purchased the house property for a sum of Rs. 3,000, demolished the same, spent Rs. 3.000 and after a period of 15 years sold the property at a loss of Rs. 1000. The reason given is that he was unable to recover rent from the tenants. Admitted position on record is, from the two blocks, he was receiving Rs. 30 per month and the rest of the blocks were occupied by him personally.