LAWS(BOM)-1989-12-17

ASHWIN KUMAR GOVERDHANDAS Vs. GANGADHAR DATATRAY GADGIL

Decided On December 12, 1989
ASHWINIKUMAR GOVARDHANDAS GANDHI Appellant
V/S
GANGADHAR DATTATRAYA GADGIL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by a learned Single Judge in Second Appeal No. 48 of 1988. The point referred is as follows : "whether the provisions of clause 13 (1) (a) of the C. P, and Berar letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 are applicable to the present case?"

(2.) THE controversy arose in the following circumstances ; the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the appellants on the ground that appellant No. 1 Ashwinikumar had obtained a lease of the suit tenements under the rent note, July 31, 1967 (Exhibit 27 ). He wanted the premises for his personal use and occupation and he, therefore, applied to the Rent Controller, akola, for permission to give a notice determining the lease. Appellant No. 1, Ashwinikumar renounced his character as a tenant and respondent, therefore, filed a pursis (Exhibit 30)praying that the proceedings before the Rent Controller be filed as appellant No. 1 has renounced the tenancy and the Court, therefore, would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. The Rent Controller, thereupon, passed an order filing the proceedings on October 19, 1984. The respondent then served a notice on December 26, 1984 exercising his option of forfeiture of tenancy on the ground of disclaimer of his title by the appellant no. 1 and asked the appellants to vacate the premises, but as they did not comply, he brought the suit for possession, mainly, on the ground of forfeiture.

(3.) THE claim was resisted by the appellants who contended that the tenement had been taken by the father of the appellant No. 1 for the use of the appellant No. 2 M/s. Alpana Terelene House. In the joint written statement filed by the appellants, it was also alleged that the appellant No. 2 was in adverse possession for more than twelve years and he had, therefore, become owner of the property. One of the contentions was also that the suit was not maintainable as no written permission from the Rent Controller was obtained as required undet clause 13 of the C. P. and Berar letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Order')