GENDALAL BHURAMAL (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES SMT. BADAMIBAI AND OTHERS Vs. VIJAYKUMAR DATTATRAYA KHOT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the appellate decree confirming the decree of the trial Court directing the appellant -defendant to deliver possession of the suit premises to the respondent -plaintiffs.

(2.) A few facts about which there is no dispute may be stated in order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties to this appeal. The respondents had let out the suit premises consisting of five rooms in a two storied building situated in the City of Akola at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/ -. In or about the year 1951 -52, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent of the suit premises at Rs. 30/ - per month under the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Control Order').'The respondents moved the Rent Controller under clause 13 of the Order for grant of permission to give notice to the appellant to determine his lease. The Rent Controller, by his order made on 25 -9 -1962, granted the permission sought for. Pursuant to this permission, the respondents, on 9 -4 -1963, sent a notice to the appellant -defendant determining his lease at the expiry of 30th April, 1963. By his reply dated 13 -5 -1963, the appellant questioned the validity of the notice asserting that in view of an appeal preferred by him against the order of the Rent Controller, the permission granted by the latter was not final. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Rent Controller came to be dismissed on 1 -6 -1965. Thereafter, on 22 -11 -1966, the respondents moved the Rent Controller for enhancing the fair rent which had been fixed earlier. On 9.5.1967, this application came to be dismissed as not pressed. Prior to that on 7 -4 -1967, the respondents sent a notice to the appellant again terminating his tenancy with effect from the end of 30th April, 1967. Since the appellant did not abide by this request calling upon him to vacate possession of the suit premises, the respondents filed a suit for eviction and damages.

(3.) BOTH the Courts below rejected the contention of the appellant that there was a settlement between him and the respondents and a fresh tenancy was created between them, Mr. Mehadia, the learned counsel for the appellant, urged that the findings of the courts below on this aspect are not legal and valid as the evidence in this respect had not been properly appreciated and the circumstances going in favour of the appellant had not been properly weighed, The question whether or not there was an agreement as contended by the appellant would be purely a question of fact. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding on this question of fact. It cannot be said that the finding is perverse so as to merit interference at the hands of the second appellate Court, I, therefore, desist from going into the correctness of this finding,