IMPORTANT POINT
Under the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946 and the Rent Control Order relating to eviction of tenant, the principle that subsequent events should be taken into account by the court while passing a decree would apply at the stage of the first proceeding relating to the grant of permission but would have no application after the order passed in the first proceeding has attained finality.

Headnote:(i) Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946-Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949-Clause 13-Eviction of tenant requiring two proceedings-One for grant of permission to issue notice terminating tenancy followed by a regular suit for eviction-Subsequent events having a bearing on order granting permission under clause on ground of bonafide need-Whether can be taken into account in proceedings arising out of a suit for eviction ?-(No)-It would apply at stage of first proceeding relating to grant of permission.
       Held : The principle that subsequent events should be taken into account by the court while passing a decree can have a limited application in a case like the present one involving two independent proceedings. It would apply at the stage of the first proceeding relating to the grant of permission but would have no application after the order passed in the first proceeding has attained finality. Once the decree or order has become final the tenant is precluded from saying that in view of subsequent events the need or requirement no more existed. (Para 12)
       Further held : Having regard to the fact that the protection that is available under clause 13 of the Rent Control Order is confined to the first proceeding governing grant of permission to issue a notice for terminating the tenancy and the tenant having been found not entitled to such protection on account of grant of such permission under clause 13 of the Rent Control Order and the said order having become final, it is not open to the tenant to reagitate the said question in the subsequent proceeding. viz., the suit for eviction, and invoke the protection available under clause 13 in the suit filed by the landlord against the tenant after the tenancy has been terminated on the basis of the permission granted under clause 13 of the Rent Control Order. The scope of inquiry in the subsequent suit is limited to the question whether permission to issue a notice to terminate the tenancy has been granted under clause 13 of the Rent Control Order and if so whether the tenancy has been validly terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the tenant has lost the right to remain in occupation of the premises let out to him. (Para 9)
       (ii) Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946-Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949-Clause 13-Eviction of tenant requiring two proceedings-Lead to multiplicity of proceedings-Cause undue hardship to parties-Legislature should give a fresh look to the said provisions and bring the law in tune with other similar legislations applicable in other parts of the country. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

S.C. Agrawal, J.--Special Leave granted.

2. This appeal by the landlord arises out of a suit for eviction from premises governed by the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order ).

3. The Rent Control Order has been made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Act which empowers the State Government by general or special order to provide for regulating the letting sub-letting of any accommodation or class of accommodation whether residential or non-residential. Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act prescribes that such order may provide for preventing the eviction of tenants or sub-tenants from such accommodation in specified circumstances. In clause 13 of the Rent Control Order provision has been made for the protection of a tenant against the eviction. The relevant parts of the said clause are reproduced below:-

"13(1) No landlord shall, except with the previous written permission of the Controller --

(a) give notice to a tenant determining the lease or determine the lease if the lease is expressed to be determinable at his option; or

(b) where the lease is determinable by efflux of the time limited thereby require the tenant to vacate the house by process of law or otherwise if the tenant is willing to continue the lease on the same terms and conditions.

xx xx xx xx xx

(3) If after hearing the parties the Controller is satisfied:-

xx xx xx xx xx

(iv) that the tenant has used the house or premises or any part thereof for a purpose other than that for which it was leased; or

xx xx xx xx xx

(vi) that the landlord needs the house or a portion thereof for the purpose of his bona fide residence, provided he is not occupying any other residential house of his own in the city or town concerned; or

xx xx xx xx xx

he shall grant the landlord permission to give notice to determine the lease as required by sub-clause (1)."

4. On April 18, 1985 the appellant submitted an application before the Rent Controller for grant of permission to issue a notice terminating the lease of the respondent. The appellant sought the permission on grounds (iv) and (vi) of sub-clause (3) of clause 13 of the Rent Control Order. The said application of the appellant was rejected by the Rent Controller by order dated December 29, 1987. The appeal filed by the appellant against the said order was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by order dated December 16, 1988 and necessary permission to issue notice terminating the lease was granted under ground (vi) of sub-clause (3) of clause 13 of the Rent Control Order, i.e., the landlord needs the house or a portion thereof for the purpose of his bona fide residence, provided he is not occupying any other residential house of his own in the city or town concerned. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dated December 16, 1988 the respondent moved the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur by filing Writ Petition No. 1745 of 1989. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge of the High Court by Judgment dated August 8, 1989. The petition filed for review of the said Judgment was dismissed by the learned single Judge by order dated November 29,1990. Thereafter the respondent filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the Judgment of the learned single Judge, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of he High Court. The petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench was dismissed by this Court. As a result the order granting permission under clause 13 of the Rent Control Order, to issue a notice terminating the lease of the respondent, became final.

5. In the meanwhile after passing of the orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1129

Cases Referred (3)