TULSIDAS UTTUMAL SINDHI Vs. TARUNKUMAR YADUNATH PARASHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 challenge is to judgment dated 22.04.1999 delivered in Civil Suit No.330/1992. The present non-applicants filed that suit for ejectment, possession, for recovery of arrears of rent and for mesne profit, against the applicants after securing permission from Rent Controller under the provisions of Clause 13 of the C.P. and Berar, Premises Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as .Rent Control Order.). The suit was opposed by the present applicants on various counts and ultimately the suit came to be decreed. At that time of admission on 30.10.2000, this Court was required to pass a speaking order and at that time the possession of the present applicants was protected.

(2.) In this background, I have heard Advocate Shri S.V. Purohit for applicants/tenants and Advocate Shri A.M. Qazi, for respondents/ original plaintiffs.

(3.) Advocate Shri Purohit, states that the suit as filed was preceded by three notices issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and as such the suit itself was not maintainable. He contends that the first notice was issued ion 13.10.1978, after Rent Controller granted permission vide order dated 6.1.1978. However, thereafter rent was accepted and second notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued on 22.12.1978, during the pendency of the appeal under clause 21 of the Rent Control Order. Appeal came to be dismissed on 07.05.1979 and then the tenant filed review petition as per Clause 21[2]. The said review came to be rejected on 18.6.1981 and then 3rd notice came to be issued on 7.1.1982. After 3rd notice suit came to be filed on 2.3.1982 for various reliefs and arrears of rent from 1.10.1981 to 23.2.1982 were also claimed. He points out that after issuance of first notice on 13.10.1979 and acceptance of rent for period from expiry of tenancy month from which the tenancy was sought to be terminated by that notice, permission granted by the Rent Control Authority on 6.1.1978, exhausted itself and without obtaining fresh permission the suit could not have been filed. He points out that inspite of the said notice dated 13.10.1978 and termination of tenancy as mentioned therein w.e.f. 31.10.1978 rent was accepted till 22.12.1978 and by notice dated 22.12.1978 the tenancy was again terminated w.e.f. 31.1.1979. Again rent was accepted and lastly suit came to be filed by placing reliance upon the third notice dated 7.1.1982. According to him unless and until there was fresh permission secured from the Rent Controller under clause 13, no suit could have been filed by placing reliance upon notice dated 7.1.1982.