RAMNIVAS MAHAVEERPRASAD GUPTA Vs. GOVINDDAS BHARUBKAS KARNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is the landlord. He initiated the proceedings before the Rent Controller, Akola, for permission to terminate the tenancy of the non-applicant/tenant. The Rent Controller, Akola, granted permission vide order dated 23.11.1972. In pursuance of that permission, the landlord terminated the tenancy of the tenant vide notice dated 1.12.1972 with effect from 31.12.1972 and, thereafter, filed Civil Suit No. 2 of 1973 for ejectment in January 1973. The tenant challenged the order of the Rent Controller by way of an appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector, Akola. While the appeal was pending before the Resident Deputy Collector, the landlord withdrew the civil suit on 24.7.1973. The Resident Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal of the tenant on 29.8.1973. The tenant filed a review petition, but the same also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 25.2.1970. Writ petition was filed thereafter, which came to be dismissed on 30th September, 1980.

(2.) THE landlord accepted the rent from the tenant from January 1973 to July 1973. He withdrew the suit in view of the pendency of the appeal by the tenant before the Resident Deputy Collector, and after the appeal was decided on 29.8.1973 the landlord again gave a notice to the tenant on 30.8.1973, terminating his tenancy with effect from 30th September, 1973 and thereafter, filed Civil Suit No. 517 of 1973 on 1.10.1973. The tenant contended that fresh suit was not tenable since the permission granted by the Rent Controller vide order dated 23.11.1972 was exhausted in view of the acceptance of rent subsequent to the notice dated 1.12.1972. However, the trial Court negatived the defence, decreed the claim of the landlord and directed enquiry into mesne profits. This order was challenged by way of an appeal. The Appellate Court, however, allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 3.2.1984 and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision.

(3.) HOWEVER , according to Mr. Mohta, admittedly the notice dated 1.12.1972 was waived by the landlord and consequently the earlier permission granted by the Rent Controller would be deemed to have been exhausted. He laid great stress on the acceptance of rent by the landlord for several months. He further contended that the earlier notice was a valid one and, therefore, there could be no doubt that the waiver of such a notice would exhaust the permission.