SHAKUNTALA Vs. KAUSALYABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the appellant can keep alive her possession of the disputed premises obtained under the ultra vires and dead law viz. Chapter III of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 is a million dollar question ?

(2.) TO appreciate this question we shall have to advert to factual canvas of the matter.

(3.) THE appellant Smt. Shakuntala filed a complaint under Chapter III of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Order, 1949") before the House Allotment Officer. It was inter alia stated in the said complaint that house No. 595/b-2 having three rooms situated at Loharpura Mohalla, Nagpur, owned by late Bholanath Pande was lying vacant and another house bearing No. 495/5 having three rooms in that very area belonging to late Bholanath Pande was lying vacant and the said landlord was intending to induct new tenants on an increased rent after the previous tenants have vacated the said premises. On a notice ultimately given to the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "landlady"), a reply came to be filed by her denying the allegations made by the appellant Shakuntala (hereinafter referred to as "allottee" ). It was submitted by the landlady that there were tenants in both the houses and occupied by Indradeo Mishra and Vikaykumar Gite and they have not vacated and handed over the possession of the tenements to the landlady. She further averred in the reply that the provisions of Cl. 20 of the Rent Control Order, 1949 were ultra vires the Constitution and submitted that proceedings were liable to be dropped.