RAMDAS P CHITRIGI Vs. MONICA PASCOL MIRANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter is referred to the Full Bench by Vadiya. J. by his judgment and order dated April 23, 1971. The question which requires to be decided by the Full Bench is not framed but he has observed that in view of certain conflict of decisions he felt that the rights of landlords and tenants in suits or appeals pending on the date on which the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was made applicable, should be determined.

(2.) RAMDAS Chitrigi, the petitioner, is the tenant of room No. 8 in a building called "monica House" situate within the limits of the Gram Panchayat of Diwanman near Bassein in Thana District. On January 20, 1968 the landlady, respondent No. 1 served a notice upon the petitioner terminating his tenancy. On April 27, 1968, respondent No. 1 filed a suit to recover possession of the premises from the petitioner. On March 31, 1970 a decree of eviction was passed against the petitioner, the trial Court inter alia observing that issues regarding landlord's bona fide requirement and comparative hardship need not be decided as admittedly the Act was not applicable to the suit premises. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner on April 29, 1970 and though during the pendency of the appeal the Act was made applicable the appeal was dismissed by the appellate court following a decision of this court in Rupchand Hemandas V. Heers, 69 Bom LR 587 = (AIR 1968 Bom 100 ). It is against the order of dismissal of the appeal that this special civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed before this court.

(3.) THE argument of Mr. Dighe on behalf of the petitioner is that it is held by the supreme court that the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Act are retrospective in operation; that having regard to the said decision and the provisions of section 50 of the Act a tenant is entitled to claim protection under the Act even if the provisions of part II of the Act are made applicable to the premises at the stage when the appeal is pending though part II was not applicable at the time when the suit was instituted and decreed by the trial Court. His submission was that an appeal is a continuation of a suit and that in view of the proviso to section 50 of the Act a tenant will be entitled to clime protection of the Act once part II is made applicable to the area where the premises are situate.