MAHARAJI WD O BAJRANGI VISHWAKARMA Vs. SAYEEDABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal brings to the fore how fortunes of the parties change with passage of time because of change in the law.

(2.) It is not in dispute that open land was let out to one Bajrangi Vishwakarma. The appellants are the legal representatives of the said Bajrangi. On 28-11-1985, the landlady filed a suit for recovery of possession of this open land. This suit came to be decreed on 24-8-1987. The provisions of C. P. and Berar letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, "the Rent Control Order") did not apply to open sites. The defendant preferred an appeal bearing Regular Civil appeal No 404 of 1987 before the District judge, Amravati. On 27-6-1989, the provisions of Rent Control Order, 1949 came to be amended, whereby sub-clause (4-A) defining "premises" was inserted in clause (2) of the Rent Control Order. By this sub-clause, the term "premises" came to encompass even open spaces. On 26-10-1989, clause 13-A was inserted making it necessary to obtain permission from the Rent Controller to file any suit for eviction of a tenant from houses or premises. The validity of these amendments has been upheld by a judgment of this Court dated 21-4-2005 On 31-3-2000, a comprehensive Maharashtra Rent Control Act came into force, whereby the provisions of the rent Control Order cease to have application in Vidarbha area of State of Maharashtra. Clause (9) of Section 7 of Maharashtra Act defined the term "premises" and this definition does not include open sites.

(3.) By a judgment in Dilip Vs. Mohd. Azizul Haq and another, reported in 2000 (2) Mh. L. J. 741: 2000 (2) ALL MR 560 (S. C. ) , the Apex Court has held that when during the pendency of an appeal arising out of a decree for ejectment of a tenant in respect of an open plot, the amendment to the Rent control Order came into force, the Appellant court would not be justified in dismissing the appeal or passing a decree for eviction, because the tenant would be entitled to protection of the amended provision of the Rent Control order. The Court observed that though the amended provision is prospective in force, it has a retrospective effect