HASHMATRAI Vs. TARACHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants 1 and 2 (the legal representatives of the original defendant Hiranand Gurumukhdas), have filed this appeal against the decree for possession passed against them in Civil Suit No. 2 of 1964 of the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Wardha, and which was confirmed by the District Judge, Wardha in appeal No. 60 of 1966.

(2.) At this stage there are certain undisputed facts. The suit property is a part of a plot situate at Wardha. Initially the entire plot was owned by one Murarka. In or about 1948, he let it out to Lalchand on the annual rent of Rs. 101/-. It seems that Lalchand started his own business after erecting some structures thereon. Thereafter he sold that business along with the lease-hold rights to the original defendant Hirachand. As far as the lessor's interests are concerned, they were sold by public auction and a firm known as Mahabir Prasad Shamsundar (acting through Motilal) purchased the suit plot. The purchaser divided the plot in three parts. One of them was sold to Manikchand, second to Krishna Charde and the third, i. e., the suit property, to Mannalal Sanchariya and Kishorilal Sanchariya. After these three sale-deeds, the rent amount was apportioned and consequently, each purchaser became the separate lesser of Hiranand so far as his part was concerned. The rent of the suit plot was fixed at Rs. 35/-per year. Mannalal and Kishorilal terminated the tenancy of the defendant by giving a notice and then filed a suit No. 306 of 1962. It was dismissed on 9-4-1963, on the ground that the tenancy of Hiranand was not terminated by a valid and proper notice. This finding was given as Hiranand contended that the tenancy was an annual tenancy and that 15 days notice would not be sufficient. After decision of the suit, the original plaintiffs Mannalal and Kishorilal gave another notice dated 10-6-1963, terminating the defendants tenancy by the end of 31-12-1963. They also claimed arrears of Rs.52.98. This notice was received by Hiranand on 13-6-1963. The notice was not complied with. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed suit under appeal to recover possession and mesne profits. Hiranand resisted the suit on various grounds. All of them are, however, not relevant for deciding this appeal. I will give in nut-shell the relevant pleas. He contended that the notice was invalid as the tenancy was beginning from 25th of June and, as such, the notice expiring by the end of 1963 was bad. Hiranand paid Rs.50/- to the plaintiffs in Jan. 1964 as rent. A contention was, therefore, raised that by accepting this rent, the plaintiffs have waived the notice, as contemplated by Section 113 of the T. P. Act. One more contention was that the C. P. & Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order, 1949, is applicable to the suit premises. Under that Order the landlord is not entitled to terminate the tenancy without previously obtaining the permission of the Rent Controller. Hiranand pleaded that no such permission was obtained by the plaintiffs and, as such, the termination of the tenancy was bad. Hiranand died during the pendency of the suit. His heirs (viz., the present appellants) filed the written statement at Ex. 22 and resisted the suit. That written statement is practically similar to the one that was filed by Hiranand at Ex. 9.

(3.) The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), who heard the suit, came to the conclusion that the Rent Control Order was not applicable and that there was no waiver of notice. A finding was recorded that the notice terminating the tenancy was legal and proper. The decree for possession was passed against the defendants. They preferred an appeal No. 60 of 1966 to the District Court, Wardha. During the pendency of the appeal, the original plaintiffs Mannalal and Kishorilal sold their interest in the suit property to Tarachand Laxmichand, the present respondent No.1. Tarachand's name was substituted in the said appeal. The appellate Court confirmed the decree and dismissed the appeal. It is this dismissal that is being challenged before me.