The appellate order under the Rent Control Order is final and the order of the Rent Controller merges in the appellate order. Therefore, a landlord is entitled to issue a fresh notice terminating the tenancy after the appeals are dismissed, based on the permission granted by the Rent Controller.

Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - C. P. & BERAR LETTING OF HOUSES AND RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1949 - CLAUSES 13 AND 21 - WAIVER OF NOTICE - ACCEPTANCE OF RENT - EFFECT - LANDLORD'S RIGHT TO TERMINATE TENANCY - FINALITY OF APPELLATE ORDER.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs-landlords obtained permission from the Rent Controller to terminate the tenancy of the non-applicant-tenant on grounds of arrears of rent and habitual defaults. A notice was served upon the tenant, who replied that the permission was not final and was subject to the decision of appeals filed against the Rent Controller's order. The landlords accepted rent from the tenant and, after the appeals were dismissed, served a fresh notice terminating the tenancy. The tenant raised a plea that the permission granted by the Rent Controller stood exhausted in view of the first notice and the second notice was not supported by any fresh permission.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the permission granted by the Rent Controller was not exhausted by the issuance of the first notice and the acceptance of rent by the landlords did not amount to a waiver of the notice or the permission. The court further held that the landlord was entitled to issue a fresh notice terminating the tenancy after the appeals were dismissed, as the appellate order was final and the order of the Rent Controller merged in the appellate order.
Issues: 1. Whether the permission granted by the Rent Controller was exhausted by the issuance of the first notice and the acceptance of rent by the landlords? 2. Whether the landlord was entitled to issue a fresh notice terminating the tenancy after the appeals were dismissed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the permission granted by the Rent Controller was not exhausted by the issuance of the first notice and the acceptance of rent by the landlords. The court reasoned that the landlord was entitled to act upon the permission granted by the Rent Controller and to issue a notice terminating the tenancy of the tenant. The court further held that the acceptance of rent by the landlords did not amount to a waiver of the notice or the permission, as the tenant had raised a plea that the permission was not final and was subject to the decision of appeals filed against the Rent Controller's order. 2. The court held that the landlord was entitled to issue a fresh notice terminating the tenancy after the appeals were dismissed. The court reasoned that the appellate order was final and the order of the Rent Controller merged in the appellate order. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to issue a fresh notice terminating the tenancy based on the permission granted by the Rent Controller.
Final Decision: The revision application was allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Court below so far as they relate to the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs relating to the possession of the suit house is concerned, are set 'aside and instead it is directed that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession of the suit property from the defendant.

JUDGMENT-Plaintiffs Hari Prasad and Satyanarayan are the owners of the suit premises admeasuring 80' x 60' on Imambada road, Nagpur and the non-applicant-tenant is occupying the same on a monthly rent of Rs. 90/-. The plaintiffs-landlords filed an application against the non-applicant-tena'nt for permission to terminate his tenancy on the grounds of arrears of rent and habitual defaults under the provisions of the C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, referred to hereinafter as the Rent Control Order. Such a permission was granted by the Rent Controller on both the counts on 27-10-1966. Thereafter the plaintiffs served a notice upon the non-applicant-tenant on 5-12-1966 terminating his tenancy with effect from the end of December 1966. Before the expiry of the said notice, the tenant, vide his reply dated 19-12-1966, informed that landlords that the quit notice given by them was bad in law and they were not entitled to terminate his tenancy since he had filed appeals against the orders of the Rent Controller and the said permission granted by the Rent Controller is not final, but is subject to the decision of appeals. In view of this contention raised on behalf of the tenant, the applicants-landlords accepted the rent from the tenant and when the appeal, were ultimately decided in their favour on 28-12-1967 they again served a notice on the non-applicant-tenant dated 1-1-1968 terminating his tenancy with effect from the end of January 196e. It was specifically stated in the said notice that the non-applicant-tenant vide his reply dated 19-12-66 had stated that the order of the Rent Controller was not final and was subject to the orders of the appellate authority, and therefore, the applicants-landlords awaited the decision in the appeals and as the appeals filed by the tenant ace now finally decided and are dismissed, they are serving the notice. After the period of expiry of the said notice and the termination of tenancy, the plaintiff, filed a suit for ejectment and for arrears of rent against the non-applicant-tenant. In this suit also the defendant-tenant raised a plea that the permission granted by the Rent Controller all 27-10-1966 stood exhausted in view of the notice dated 5-12-1966 and as the fresh notice issued thereafter, namely, the notice dated 1-1-1968, was not supported by any fresh permission from the Rent Controller, the suit itself was not maintainable.

2. Before the trial Court the parties filed various documents in support of their respective case and these documents are admitted by both the parties. The learned Judge found that the tenancy was a monthly tenancy and necessary permission was granted by the Rent Controller. However, relying upon a decision of this Court in Chaturbhuj v. Mangnibai1 the learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was a waiver of the first notice and the permission granted by the Rent Controller stood exhausted and as no fresh permission from the Rent Controller was obtained by the landlords before issuing the second notice dated 1-1-1968, the second notice is not a legal and valid one and hence the suit h not maintainable so far as the plaintiffs' claim for ejectment and possession of the suit property is concerned. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court passed a money decree in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendant to pay an 2.mount of Rs. 180/- to the plaintiffs on account of arrears or rent till 31-1-1968. However, he dismissed the suit regarding the possession of the suit house. Being aggrieved by this judgment of the learned Judge of the trial Court, the plaintiffs-landlords have filed this revision application.

3. Shri Somalwar, the learned counsel for the applicants, contended before me that the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court has committed an error in holding that in view of the first notice itself (Ex. 39), namely, notice dated 5-12-1966, the permission granted by the Rent-Controller stood

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1974 Supreme(Bom) 41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY(C. S. Dharmadhikari J.) HARI PRASAD and another (Ori. Plaintiffs)- Applicants. v. NATHMAL CHUNILAL (Original Defendant) -Opponent. Advocate AppearedFor applicants - W. G. Somalwar. For opponent - Imdadali and A. K. Ramchandani.

The appellate order under the Rent Control Order is final and the order of the Rent Controller merges in the appellate order. Therefore, a landlord is entitled to issue a fresh notice terminating the tenancy after the appeals are dismissed, based on the permission granted by the Rent Controller.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(C. S. Dharmadhikari J.)
HARI PRASAD and another (Ori. Plaintiffs)- Applicants.
v.
NATHMAL CHUNILAL (Original Defendant) -Opponent.
Advocate Appeared
For applicants - W. G. Somalwar.
For opponent - Imdadali and A. K. Ramchandani.