Back
2003 Supreme(Bom) 541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
Kanade V.M., J.
Lalabi Mankhan .... Appellant.
Versus
Dhelullakhan Imamkhan Lodhi.... Respondent.
Second Appeal No. 328 of 1993, decided on 2-5-2003.
Advocates appeared :
Z.A. Haq, for appellant.
K.R. Lambat, for respondent.
Headnote:
Ejectment - Licensee - Central Provinces Berar Letting of Houses Rent Control Order, 1949 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Central Provinces Berar Letting of Houses Rent Control Order, 1949 - The court discussed the requirement of prior permission of the Rent Controller in cases of a licensee who did not pay rent to the owner. The judgment of the court in Nababkhan Abdullakhan and another v. Jamrubi w/o. Abdullakhan, 1992 Mh.L.J. 260 was relied upon to conclude that the permission of the Rent Controller was not required in such cases. The court also referred to the interpretation of the term 'licensee' in section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 to support its decision. The court emphasized that the word 'licence' would include both a licensee paying rent and a licensee who is not paying the rent. The judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others v. Brigadier Sukhjit Singh, 1993(3) Supreme Court Cases 459 was distinguished as the facts were different. The court also discussed the interpretations of words in statutes from the judgments of the Apex Court in Davis v. Sebastian, 1999(6) Supreme Court Cases 604 and Arul Nadar v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, 1998(7) Supreme Court Cases 157.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and possession of a property against the defendant, who was occupying a room as a licensee without paying any licence fee. The defendant denied the plaintiff's ownership and alleged fraud in obtaining the property.
Finding of the Court:
The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal, holding that the permission of the Rent Controller was not required to revoke the licence. The defendant then filed a second appeal in the High Court, challenging the lower Appellate Court's decision.
Issues: The issues included whether the permission of the Rent Controller was necessary, the validity of the notice revoking the licence, and the ownership of the premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the permission of the Rent Controller was not required in the case of a licensee who did not pay rent to the owner. It also emphasized that the word 'licence' would include both a licensee paying rent and a licensee who is not paying the rent. The court further held that in cases where the defendant disclaimed the title of the plaintiff and alleged ownership, the permission of the Rent Controller was not required.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the defendant was directed to hand over possession of the suit room to the plaintiff.
2. Brief facts are as under :
The plaintiff is the owner of Municipal House No. 288 situated in Ward No. 37. The case of the plaintiff was that he purchased that property by a registered sale deed dated 10-11-1980 from one Karimabi Bismillakhan. The defendant is the daughter of Karimabi and as such she was given one room for her residence. She was occupying the said room as a licensee. She did not pay any licence fee to Karimabi. The plaintiff purchased the property in the year 1980 but the defendant continued to reside in the said room as a licensee. The defendant did not pay any licence fee to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, asked the defendant to vacate the room and hand over the possession. The plaintiff issued notice to the defendant on 25-4-84 and revoked the licence by the said notice. The defendant received the notice on 27-4-84 but she refused to hand over the possession of the property. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit for ejectment and possession of the suit premises and for recovery of damages.
3. The defendant filed her written statement and denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. She denied that the plaintiff had purchased House No. 288 from Karimabi by sale deed dated 10-11-1980. The case of the defendant was that she being the only heir of Karimabi, she had become owner of that house property. It was her case that the sale deed was obtained by the plaintiff by practising fraud and misrepresentation upon Karimabi. It was also contended that the plaintiff had not obtained any prior permission from the House Rent Controller for issuing notice and revoking the licence.
4. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved that he was the owner of the House No. 288 under the sale deed dated 10-11-1980. Trial Court further held that the defendant is a licensee and in possession of the suit room since 1977. Trial Court further held that due to amendment Act of 1989, the licensee was also brought within the meaning of tenant and, therefore, held that since permission was not obtained from the Rent Controller, the suit was not maintainable. Trial Court on the sole ground dismissed the suit.
5. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said judgment and order passed by the trial Court. It was inter alia contended before the Appellate Court that permission of the Rent Controller was not required to revoke the licence. It was also contended that since the defendant had disclaimed the title of the plaintiff and had alleged that she was the owner of the premises, on that ground also, permission of the Rent Controller was not required. The lower appellate Court, relying on judgment of this Court reported in the case of (Nababkhan Abdullakhan and another v. Jamrubi w/o. Abdullakhan)1, 1992 Mh.L.J. 260, held that the permission of the Rent Controller was not required in cases where the defendant was a licensee who did not pay any rent to the owner. The appeal was, therefore, allowed and the judgment and order of the trial Court was set aside and the defendant was directed to hand over possession of the suit room of House No. 288 and damages was also awarded to the tune of Rs. 2,775/-.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court, the defendant has preferred this second appeal in this Court, and on 24-3-94 the second appeal was admitted on the grounds formulated at Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 7. The said grounds are reproduced herein below :
(3) Whether the learned Second Additional District Judge is right in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and in concluding that the permission of the House Rent Controller under the provisions of the Central Provinces Berar Letting of Houses Rent Control Order, 1949 is not necessary in the present
