MAHALINGA BANDAPPA Vs. VENKATESH WAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS in defendant's appeal from a judgment of the lower appellate Court, by which judgment the judgment of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent was confirmed, and it raises interesting points under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed this suit for recovering possession of his premises and arrears of rent from the defendant to whom the premises were let for business or trade. The suit premises are a portion of a house let to the defendant for running a shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- and they are situated in what at one time was the Shahapur Municipal District in the former Sangli State. In the notice which the plaintiff save to the defendant on the 9-2-1953, the plaintiff said that he required the suit premises for the use of his family. At the hearing he contended that he was in need of these premises as he wanted to start a cloth shop therein for his sons. The learned Third Joint Civil Judge, J. D. , at Belgaum, holding that the provisions of the Bombay Bents, Hotel and. Lodging House Bates Control Act, 1947, did not apply to the suit premises and that, therefore, the defendant was ''not entitled to claim the benefit" of the Act. decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession and arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 35-5-4. On appeal by the defendant, the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge at Belgaum upheld the view of the trial Judge that "the defendant was not entitled to the benefit of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947" and confirmed the decree of the trial Court. Prom that decree, the defendant has filed the present appeal.

(3.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff on the 10-4-1952 and it was resisted by the defendant upon the contention that the plaintiff did not require possession of the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation nor for starting a cloth shop for his sons and that, therefore, the provisions of Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Bombay Bents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, would not be attracted in this case. The learned trial Judge, on the merits of the plaintiff's contention that the plaintiff required possession of the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation or for starting a cloth shop for his sons, held against the plaintiff, but he decreed the suit upon the ground that the provisions of Part II of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, in so far as they related to the premises let for business or trade, were not made applicable to what was formerly the Shahapur Municipal District at the date 10-4-1952 upon which date the present suit was filed, that, therefore, the defendant would not be entitled to claim the benefit of the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging Home Rates Control Act, 1947, and the plaintiff would not be subject to the restrictions contained in Section 13 of the Act and that the suit would be governed by the provisions of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. It may be noted here that the learned trial Judge decided the suit on the basis that "it fell under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act"; notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff, in his notice dated "the 9-2-1852, which ha save to the defendant before filing the suit on 10-4-1952, had made categoric statements which would suggest that he was filing the suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. For instance, he said in his notice: in making these averments, the plaintiff clearly sought to attract the provisions of Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act; and yet the learned trial Judge decreed the suit on the basis that "it fell under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. "