JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE M.S., J.:---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 Ashwinkumar 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 under Clause 13 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Order').

4. The trial Court held on the main issue that it was necessary for the respondent to obtain permission of the Rent Controller before instituting the suit. While holding that the appellant No. 1's father had taken the premises in the name of the appellant No. 1 and had started the business under the name and style of appellant No. 2, it was also found that appellant No. 2 was the tenant.

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim for possession, respondent appealed to the District Court. Only two points were raised in the District Court and on these two points, the District Court held that appellant No. 1 had taken the tenement on lease on March 31, 1967 and found that the notice terminating the tenancy rights of the appellants, in consequence of the forfeiture, was valid, in view of the provisions of section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. The District Court allowed the appeal and decreed the respondent's claim.

6. In the second appeal, taken to this Court, only two points were raised before the learned Single Judge, they being (1) whether by denial of tenancy, the forfeiture had been incurred and (2) whether the permission of the Rent Controller was necessary before issuing a notice of forfeiture under section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. On the first point the learned Single Judge found that the appellants had disclaimed the tenancy, that the tenancy had been set up in the appellant No. 2 which was contrary to the rent-note (Exhibit 27) and above all, appellant No. 2 had set up adverse possession against the respondent. In the view of the learned Single Judge, therefore, all the requirements contemplated by Condition No. 2 of section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act had been fulfilled. He further held that the landlord had got an option and he, accordingly had exercised his option by issuing a notice under Cl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document