B. K. MEHTA, J. M. SHETH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Junagadh in Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1964 whereunder he confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Junagadh in Civil Suit No. 32 of 1963. That suit was filed by one Munshi Abdullah Miyan Mahmad Miyan describing himself as the Rent Collector of the house of Datar Estate Committee of Junagadh. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the leased premises and arrears of rent on the ground that the appellant-tenant was a tenant in arrears. A valid notice to quit was given and the contractual tenancy was determined. A notice contemplated under sec. 12 (2) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act) was given. That notice was not complied with and hence the suit was filed as contemplated under sec. 12 (2) of the Act. That notice was given under the instructions of both the rent controller and the chairman of the Committee.

( 2 ) THE contention raised by the tenant by his written statement Ex. 8 was that a rent collector of the Datar Estate has no right to file a suit. The suit property did not belong to the Datar Estate at all. On the land on which the structure stood which was originally a hut his grand-mother was staying for the last 35 years. He had reconstructed the house. The land was the Government land. It was the municipal land. It was not the property belonging to the Datar Estate and he was not the tenant of the Datar Estate. It was represented to him on behalf of the said Estate that if he executed such a rent note that would help the said Estate in extending the extent of its property and that is how the rent-note came to be executed by him in favour of the Datar Estate. He had not paid the rent due as the title of the Datar Estate was under challenge and the Municipality was claiming its title over the property. He should be given credit for the amount spent by him for the reconstruction and repairs.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff who is found to be a rent-collector of the Datar Estate has a right to file such a suit in view of the provisions of the Act. The defendant failed to prove that he had executed the rent-note on the aforesaid representation. The defendant is stopped from challenging the title of his landlord. The defendant has failed to prove the alleged expenditure. He is not entitled to get any such amount even if he spent it being for reconstruction of the house and not for repairs. The defendant was not ready and willing to pay the rent. In view of these findings a decree for possession and for arrears of rent and for mesne profits was passed against the defendant. The suit was decreed with costs.

( 4 ) AGAINST that judgment and decree the defendant preferred Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1964. The learned District Judge who heard that appeal confirmed that judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs in the appeal. The defendant was directed to hand-over possession on or before 1st February 1965

( 5 ) AGAINST that judgment and decree the defendant has preferred the present appeal to this Court.

( 6 ) OUR learned brother D. P. Desai J. has referred this matter to a larger Bench as he was of the opinion that the decision given by a single Judge of this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 841 of 1966 decided on 16th August 1970 (M/s. Heirs of decd. Madhavlal v. Motising) (XII G. L. R. 24) was not correct and according to him such a rent-collector was not competent to file such a suit.

( 7 ) IN his referring judgment our learned Brother D. P. Desai J. has observed that two question only arise for determination in this second appeal and they are: (1) whether a person who is a rent collector of properties let out to a tenant which properties are governed by the Act has a right to file a suit for eviction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document