SHRINIWAS GOVIND MUDHOLKAR Vs. DATTATRAYA MAHADEO RANADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff landlord against the concurrent orders of the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by him. Briefly the facts are that the appellant original plaintiff No. 1 and the respondent No. 3 i.e. his son filed a suit for possession of the suit land against the respondents No. 1 and 2. According to the plaintiff No. 1, there was a registered agreement of lease dated 1-11-1958 between him and the defendant 1 for 10 years and that the period of lease expired on 31-10-1968. Further according to him, the lease was of an open site for construction of a structure for running a press which structure was constructed on the said site by the defendant No. 1 where he carried on the printing business by installing the press machinery.

(2.) The defendant No. 1 remained in possession of the suit site even after the expiry of the period of lease. In 1970, the defendant No. 1 lease out the shed constructed by him and the Machinery installed by him to the defendant No. 2. One year after the defendant No. 2 took the lease, he purchased the printing machinery from the defendant No. 1. Thus from 1970, the defendant No. 2 carried on the printing business in the suit premises.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit site belonged to the joint family of the plaintiffs and since the defendants were in illegal and unauthorised possession of the same after the expiry of the lease on 30-10-1968, which created a tenancy at will, the defendants were liable to be evicted without giving them a quit notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendants resisted the suit by filing their written statement. It is the case of the defendants that the defendant No. 2 himself was a tenant of the suit site because he was inducted on the suit site as a tenant in the presence and with the consent of the plaintiff No. 1. It is also their case that at any rate the defendant No. 1 continued to be the tenant of the suit site by holding over because the plaintiff No. 1 accepted the rent from the defendants and even otherwise, assented to continuance of his tenancy. The defendants also raised a plea that the provisions of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order) were applicable to the suit premises and in the absence of the permission of the Rent Controller, the instant suit was not maintainable.