HARGOVINDJI CHUNNILAL BHAYANI Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI SARWAJANAIK WACHANALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Refusal to interfere in the present controversy brought before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is likely to result in some hard and unjust results as far as the petitioner is concerned and is also likely to unjustly confer a benefit in favour of the respondent which was not intended by the parties as appears from the facts of the case. However, the matter before this Court arises out of a proceeding wherein the present petitioner cannot be helped and he must be left to his remedy under the general law.

(2.) The respondent owns premises situate at Hinganghat. A block was in the occupation of the present petitioner which he was using for business purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- per month, He was thus a tenant of the respondent. The respondent wanted to construct a new building and it appears ample from the facts to observe that for that purpose wanted to have the premises vacated by the petitioner. Such a landlord could have satisfied the requirements of Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter called the order) and determined the tenancy by giving a notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act. If such an application was made, the landlord had to satisfy the Rent Controller about the validity of the ground and the Rent Controller upon such satisfaction would have granted the permission. If as a result of such permission tenant was ejected, provisions of Clause 13 (7) operated upon the premises vacated for the purpose of repairs or alterations and created a right in favour of the tenant like the petitioner who is evicted after obtaining the orders of the Rent Controller to repossess the same premises on the same conditions subject, however, to the right of waiver in favour of the tenant.

(3.) In the present case, however, it appears that the respondent approached the petitioner privately and by an agreement entered into on March 4, 1969, the present petitioner-tenant agreed to vacate the premises within fifteen days from the date of agreement., It is provided in the agreement that during the period of construction of the new building the petitioner will be occupying the open land by constructing a temporary shed. The respondent had agreed to give material required for such construction. It is further clear from the agreement that after the new construction was erected the respondent had agreed that a specified shop, being ship No. 2, would be allotted to the petitioner and the rent would be fixed according to Government Notification. It appears from the order and the proceedings brought before this Court that acting upon this agreement the petitioner vacated the premises and the respondent took its possession and has constructed a new building. The petitioner under the agreement is occupying a temporary structure in the compound of that building as was envisaged by the agreement. The respondent, however, refused, it appears, to let out Block No. 2, which was allotted under the agreement in the new building to the petitioner and, on the other hand, wanted to eject the petitioner from the temporary structure.