MATHEW CHARIAN CHRISTIAN Vs. RAJKUMAR RAMAVATAR CHOURASIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal filed by tenant against the judgment of first Appellate Court at Akola confirming decree for arrears of rent, mesne profits and ejectment passed by the trial Court with some slight modification in the amount of mesne profits. Appellant raised number of grounds in the memo of appeal but at the time of admission, appeal was restricted to the question as to whether permission granted by Rent Controller under clause 13 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (referred to hereinafter for short as 'Rent Control Order') which forms the basis of a notice of termination of tenancy under section 105 of Transfer of Property Act, must be a permission which has become final in terms of clause 21(3) of Rent Control Order. The other question which was formulated as a substantial question of law was as to whether a decree for mesne profits could be passed against a tenant for the period between termination of tenancy and filing of suit in a case in which permission granted by Rent Controller had not become final on the date of termination of tenancy.

(2.) RELEVANT facts for the purpose of decision of this appeal may now be referred before the question of law raised by Shri G.B. Lohia for appellant is concerned. Order by Rent Controller was passed on 25 -4 -1978 which is at Ex. 32. Notice of termination of tenancy on the basis of the said order was issued on 14 -7 -1978 and it is at Ex. 33. Appeal against Ex. 32 was filed before Resident Deputy Collector at Akola on 14 -7 -1978. Suit for ejectment was filed on 18 -9 -1978 and it was decreed on 17 -9 -1980. The first appellate Judgment is dated 31 -8 -1981. It is after the decision of the first appellate judgment that the appeal filed under the provisions of Rent Control Order came to be dismissed on 12 -10 -1981. This was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2469 of 1981 which was dismissed in motion hearing on 13 -4 -1982.

(3.) SECTION 9 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944, as it stood before its repeal by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, provided that no landlord shall eject a tenant and obtain possession of tenanted premises so long as tenant paid and was ready and willing to pay rent to the full extent allowable by Part II of the said Act and perform other conditions of tenancy. Proviso to section 9, however, permitted a landlord to terminate tenancy where he obtained a certificate from Controller certifying that the tenant had committed any act contrary to the provisions of clause (u) or clause (p) of section 108 of Transfer of Property Act or was guilty of conduct which was a nuisance or annoyance to any adjoining or neighbouring occupiers or that rent charged to a sub -tenant was in excess of a standard rent of that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord either for his own occupation or for occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises were held or for any other cause which may be deemed satisfactory by the Controller Section 14 provided for appeal against order passed by Controller. Subsection (3) of section 14 was in the following words.