S R AHMAD Vs. QAZI SHAHABUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this second appeal takes an exception to the judgment and decree dated 21-8-1989 passed by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in regular Civil Appeal No. 637 of 1984 whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court directing the respondent/defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit plot by removing his temporary structure within thirty days from the date of that order and also to pay damages at the rate of Re. 1 /- per day since 10th May, 1983 to 23rd August, 1983 with separate enquiry to be held under order XX, Rule 12 of C. P. C. for mesne profits was set aside so far as the delivery of the possession of the suit plot and the payment of damages and enquiry into future mesne profits is concerned and consequently the Appellate Court dismissed the suit to that extent.

(2.) RELEVANT facts are as under: the appellant/plain tiff instituted a civil suit for eviction and possession of the suit plot. The suit property belongs to the trust and the plaintiff claims to be the Mutawalli and plaintiff No. 2 is the Manager of Masjid Maulana Syed hussamuddin alias Maulana Syed Mohammad Gul Saheb. The defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises on the monthly rent of Rs. 25/ -. The monthly tenancy commences from 10th of ea9h month ends on the 9th day of the subsequent month as per the gregorian calendar. Since there was a lease of open plot, it was contended that the provisions of C. P. and Berar letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short Rent Control order) are not attracted and, therefore, the notice dated 23-8-1982 was served on the defendant calling upon to him to vacate the suit plot and to deliver the possession, but in vain. Therefore, the plaintiff/trust was constrained to institute the suit for eviction.

(3.) THE defendant combated the claim for eviction and contended that the plaintiffs being Mutawalli and Manager were not entitled to bring an action for eviction of the tenant and the suit is bad for want of necessary permission from the Charity Commissioner. It was contended that the suit plot falls within the area declared as slum area by the Government under the notification issued under the Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment)Act, 1971 (for short the Slums Act) and, as such, the suit is bad for want of necessary permission of the Competent Authority as is required by section 22 of the Slums Act.