KAMLAKANT RAMCHANDRA GADKARI Vs. RANGRAO GHANSHYAM PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Chandur Railway on 24th April, 1986 overruling the objections raised by the judgment-debtor to the decree of eviction has been the subject-matter of revision before this Court.

(2.) The controversy covers a very narrow compass. The decree-holder-opponent obtained a decree for eviction against the petitioner-judgment-debtor in Regular Civil Suit No. 138 of 1981. In pursuance of this decree an execution has been filed before the trial Court. It may be pointed out at this stage that the decree obtained from the trial Court was a compromise decree. The judgment-debtor recorded his objection to the execution. The first and foremost objection was that the decree for possession is null and void in view of the judgment of this Court which has declared the notification issued under Clause 30 of the Rent Control Order as unconstitutional. The trial Court on hearing both the parties overruled this objection. This order has been the subject-matter of the present revision.

(3.) It is not disputed that the decree which has been the subject-matter of execution before the trial Court was a consent decree, but at the same time it is more or less an admitted position that the decree was obtained by the landlord against the tenant and that too without obtaining the permission of the Rent Controller as is required by Clause 13(1) of the Rent Control Order. To appreciate the real controversy it may be stated at this stage that the Government has issued a Notification purporting to be under Clause 30 of the Rent Control Order exempting the residential premises constructed on or after 1-1-1951 from the operation of the Rent Control Order. This notification prevailed for decades and it was ultimately challenged before this Court on the ground that it was unconstitutional and ultra vires. This Court upheld the contentions and declared this notification as ultra vires. This judgment has been reported in (Prabhakar Rokde v. State of Maharashtra) 1985 Mh.L.J. 548. The effect of this judgment is that there has been no exemption and all the tenements are equally governed by provisions of the Rent Control Order.