MARUTRAO PANDURANG ZENDE Vs. EKNATH SHIVRAM JAGTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenants petition against the decree passed by the learned Fourth Extra Assistant Judge of Poona whereby the plaintiffs suit for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner was decreed. The petitioner and the respondent will hereinafter the called "defendant" and "plaintiff" respectively. This petition raises an interesting question of law relating to the consequences of the withdrawal by the notification of the provisions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter after called "the Bombay Rent Act") from certain areas to which the said provisions had been made applicable earlier.

(2.) Admittedly the defendant was in possession of a part of the house No. 589 hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises" situated at Saswad in Purandar Taluka of Poona District. The defendant entered in the suit premises as a tenant in January 1963 and continued to occupy the same as a tenant. It is said that the initial rent was Rs. 20/- and subsequently it was increased to Rs. 50/- per month. The plaintiff, by a notice dated 2nd July, 1970, terminated the tenancy of the defendant with effect from 31st July, 1970 and filed a suit for the recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground among others that he was in need of the same for the purpose of his business as parcel commission agent of the State Transport. The suit was resisted by the defendant on various grounds which however need not be mentioned in details for the purpose of the disposal of this petition.

(3.) The learned trial Judge decreed the suit upon holding that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were not applicable to the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. This decree was successfully challenged by the defendant in appeal which was allowed by the appeal Court. The appeal Court set aside the decree of the trial Court and remanded the suit to the trial Court holding that during the pendency of the suit the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were made applicable and, therefore, the suit would be governed by the provisions of the said Act.