JETHMAL Vs. PARMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by plaintiff under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th July, 1987, dismissing the claim towards arrears of rent.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, defendant was permitted to occupy the suit premises on monthly charges of Rs. 10/- without there being a relations of landlord and tenant. The premises are admittedly situated in a notified slum area as per section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1971). The plaintiff applied to the competent authority under section 22(2) of the Act for permission to evict the defendant. However, the permission was refused and appeal to the Tribunal was also dismissed. The plaintiff, therefore, in 1983 instituted the suit for recovery of arrears of Rs. 360/- towards the occupation charges. The trial Court held that he claim is not recoverable. Mr. Deopujari, the learned Counsel for the applicant/ plaintiff took me through the provision of the Act of 1971. This Act came into force on 19th May, 1978. Section 22 provides :--- no person shall after commencement of the Act except with the permission of the Competent Authority :

(3.) Mr. P.N. Deopujari made a submission before me that the suit was filed in 1983 for recovery of arrears of occupation charges when permission of the Competent Authority was not a condition precedent. The amendment came into being on 5th February, 1987, after the filing of the suit. The same has a prospective effect. It does not, therefore, affect proceedings which are pending. According to Mr. Deopujari, the suit could proceed and a decree if passed in his favour could be executed on grant of permission by the competent authority.