SHESHAPPA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS Vs. NAROTTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute before me is in respect of the possession of a theatre situated at Basmath town in Parbhani District owned by Narottam s/o Jainarayan Kabra, respondent No. 1 in this revision application. In the year 1964 Daulatrao, respondent No. 2 took this theatre on rent from the original owner. Respondent No. 3, Laxman, later joined Daulatrao as a partner. Four suits, Regular Civil Suit Nos. 44/1970; 134/1972; 128/1973; and 19/1975, had to be filed by the landlord for the recovery of the rent as Daulatrao did not pay rent. An application was moved by Narottam, the owner of the property, before the Rent Controller, Hingoli, for the possession of the suit theatre on the ground firstly that the tenant, Daulat is wilful defaulter; secondly he has altered the suit premises to the detriment of the interest of the landlord; thirdly that he has introduced a sub-tenant, namely Sheshappa, s/o Narayan Rakhewar, petitioner before this Court. A preliminary objection was raised by defendant No. 3 (petitioner in this revision application) before the Rent Controller that the Court of Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try this case since the Hyderabad Houses (Rent Eviction and Lease) Control Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Hyderabad Rent Act" for brevity) has no application to the town of Basmath. The learned Judge framed this as a preliminary point and arrived at a conclusion that Basmath is under the cover of the Hyderabad Rent Act and rejected the preliminary objection of defendant No. 3. He further held by this judgment dated 7th December, 1979, that the defendant No. 1 is not a wilful defaulter and further held that the sub-tenancy was created in favour of defendant No. 3 by defendant No. 1, but was pleased to observe that the sub-tenancy is with consent and knowledge of the plaintiff and, therefore, rejected the prayer for possession of the suit premises and dismissed the application by his order dated 7th December, 1979, in file No. 75/RC/9/10. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, an appeal was preferred to the learned District Judge under Section 25 of the Hyderabad Rent Act by the landlord. This appeal, being Rent Control Appeal No. 12/1979, was allowed by the District Judge, Prabhani, vide his judgment and order dated 9th October, 1985, holding that the defendant No. 1 is a wilful defaulter but on other points he negatived the contentions raised by the appellant holding that the alterations made have not diminished the value of the suit premises and have not rendered it dangerous. He further held that the defendant No. 3 is introduced in the premises without the permission of the plaintiff. He further held that the Hyderabad Rent Control Act is applicable to Basmath. Therefore, he allowed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 19th October, 1985 and ordered that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 vacate the suit premises and hand over the possession to the plaintiff on or before 1st January, 1986.

(2.) THE present Revision Application No. 571/1985 was admitted by this Court and rule with interim stay to the execution of the Appellate Court's order dated 19th October, 1985, was granted on 29th October, 1985.

(3.) IN support of his contention, Shri Lovekar invited my attention to the provisions of the Hyderabad Rent Act and more particularly to sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act. Section 1(3) reads as follows :-