JUDGMENT - DHABE H.W., J.:—Writ Petition No. 540 of 1991 and Civil Revision No. 774 of 1989 with Second Appeals Nos. 42 of 1992 and 46 of 1992 are placed together before us for hearing and disposal. In Civil Revision No. 774 of 1989, there is a reference made by the learned Single Judge to the Division Bench of this Court by his order dated 20th September, 1991, because he did not agree with the view taken by the two learned Single Judges of this Court previously in separate cases before them regarding the interpretation and effect of Clause 13-A newly inserted in the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order) by Clause 5 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order (Second Amendment) Order, 1989 (for short the Second Amendment Order, 1989) which was issued by the State Government as per its notification dated 26-10-1989 (see M.G.G. Extraordinary, Part IV-B, dated 27-10-1989, pp. 620-621). Since the Second Appeals Nos. 42 of 1992 and 46 of 1992 involved the same question as in abovereferred Civil Revision Application No. 174 of 1989; they were directed to be put up along with the abovereferred Civil Revision and since the learned Single Judge has made a reference to the Division Bench in the abovereferred Civil Revision, the above Second Appeals are also placed before us for hearing along with the abovereferred Civil Revision.

2. It may be seen that the two learned Single Judges in previous cases i.e. in (Smt. Gangubai v. Nilkanth)1, 1991 Mh.L.J 1178 by Desai, J., and in (Mohd. Rafik v. Tahera Begum)2, in Second Appeal No. 148 of 1977 with Second Appeal No. 149 of 1988, decided on 7-2-1991 by Chavan, J., have held that in view of Clause 13-A of the Second Amendment Order, 1989, the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control (Amendment) Order, 1989 (for short the First Amendment Order, 1989) issued by the State Government as per its Notification dated 27-6-1989 (see M.G.G. Part IV-B dated 13-7-1989, p. 787) which makes applicable the provisions of the Rent Control Order to an open plot are applicable to a pending suit or a proceeding for the eviction of a tenant from the open plot and therefore, if such a pending suit or a proceeding for eviction is not preceded by a prior permission of the Rent Controller as envisaged by Clause 13(1) of the Rent Control Order, it has to be dismissed even at the appellate stage by setting aside the decree for eviction granted by the trial Court, although at the time of passing of such decree by the learned trial Court, the Rent Control Order was not applicable to open plots i.e. prior to the First Amendment Order, 1989. The learned Single Judge while making the reference to the Division Bench in Civil Revision No. 774 of 1989 is however, of the view that even as per Clause 13-A introduced by the Second Amendment Order, 1989, the suit should not be dismissed, but should be kept pending allowing the landlord to obtain permission of the Rent Controller under Clause 13(1) of the Rent Control Order and directing him to produce the same in the suit or the appeal as the case may be pending on the date when Clause 13(A) was inserted in the Rent Control Order.

3. As regards Writ Petition No. 540 of 1991 which is placed before us, the petitioner/landlord has challenged the validity of the above amendments introduced by the State Government in the original Rent Control Order principally on the ground that the State Government has no power or authority to regulate letting or sub-letting of open sites. We propose to decide the writ petition first because if the writ petition succeeds and the impugned amendments seeking to apply the provisions of the Rent Control Order to the open sites are struck down, it would not be necessary to consider the reference made by the learned Single Judge in Civil Revision No. 774 of 1989 as it would then become infructuous.

4. The facts in Writ Petition No. 540 of 1991 are that the petitioner and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document