The issuance of quit notice during the pendency of a stay order does not render it invalid, protecting the landlord's rights under the Rent Control Order.

JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

(2) By this petition, the petitioners i.e. the original tenants have challenged orders passed by the two Courts below, whereby, the petitioners have been evicted from the tenanted premises.

(3) In the present case, the proceedings were initiated by filing an application under the C. P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949, whereby permission was sought to issue quit notice to the petitioners. This was a proceeding initiated way back in the year 1978-79 and eventually the Rent Controller passed an order dated 30/10/1998, granting permission to the respondent to terminate the tenancy of the petitioners under clause 13(3)(vi) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order, 1949.

(4) Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Rent Controller, the respondents issued a quit notice to the petitioners on 02/11/1998, which was received by the petitioners, but they claimed that only the first page of the notice was received. Thereafter, on a challenge raised in an appeal filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, a stay order came to be passed on 13/11/1998. Thereafter, on 17/11/1998, the respondents issued another quit notice to the petitioners, which was returned. Such notice was also issued by Registered Post A.D., which the petitioners refused. It is an admitted position that the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller dated 30/10/1998, granting permission to the respondents to issue quit notice to the petitioners was confirmed by the dismissal of the appeal and eventually by dismissal of writ petition by this Court.

(5) In pursuance of the aforesaid notices issued by the respondents, the eviction proceedings commenced and culminated in favour of the respondents and the petitioners were directed to be evicted from the tenanted premises. This was by a judgment and order dated 31/03/2017, passed by the Court of Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners challenged the order before the District Judge, Nagpur. The appeal was dismissed on 29/06/2019, confirming the eviction decree. The present writ petition was filed, challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Small Causes Court and the District Court. This Court issued notice in the present writ petition and the respondents entered appearance through counsel.

(6) Mr. H. D. Dangre, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised only one point while arguing the present petition. It was submitted that in the admitted facts of the present case, the quit notice itself was invalid and that therefore, proceedings initiated before the Small Causes Court were vitiated and on this ground itself, the suit for eviction ought to have been dismissed. It was submitted that the District Court also failed to appreciate the said aspect of the matter.

(7) In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the quit notice dated 02/11/1998, issued by the respondents was not a complete document and only the first page was received by the petitioners, thereby indicating that the said notice could not be said to be a valid notice, despite permission granted by the Rent Controller by order dated 30/10/1998, to issue such a quit notice. Then it was submitted that the subsequent quit notice dated 17/11/1998, issued by the respondent was a stillborn document, because it was issued admittedly after order passed by the appellate authority on 13/11/1998, granting stay to the order of the Rent Controller. It is submitted that this aspect was highlighted before the Courts below, but reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Prasad and another vs. Nathmal Chunilal, 1974 Mh.L.J. 637, to reject the said contention.

(8) According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the said case was clearly distinguishable, because in the present