NABABKHAN ABDULLAKHAN Vs. JAMRUBI W/O ABDULLAKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the original defendants challenge the decrees passed by the two Courts below against them, directing them to deliver possession of the suit room to the plaintiff.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, she was the owner of the suit house and the defendants were her licensees who had not vacated the premises, in spite of a notice revoking the licence and she was, therefore, entitled to possession. This claim was resisted by the defendants who denied the plaintiffs title, set up an ownership in themselves and alternatively contended that certain amounts were to be sent to the plaintiff by the defendants for her maintenance, and they were not to be evicted from the house.

(3.) SHRI Nand, learned Counsel for the appellants, fairly stated that he would not be in a position to challenge the findings of the two Courts below that the plaintiff was the owner and the defendants were the licensees. He, however, urged that in view of the amendments to the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 ('Rent Control Order' for short), brought about on 27th June, 1989 and 26th October, 1989, the plaintiff would not be entitled to claim a decree for eviction. He relied on Section 13A which has been inserted by the Second Amendment Order of 1989, which runs as follows: