D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is defendants Second Appeal.

( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this Appeal are as under : the suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for eviction of the defendantappellant from the disputed accommodation situated in village Limkheda. It was alleged to be in the tenancy of the defendant-appellant on monthly rent of Rs. 50. 00. The tenancy was determined by a notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of property Act. The premises was not vacated and arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 325. 00 were also not paid, hence the suit was filed. The plaintiff pleaded that the bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is not applicable in village Limkheda. The suit was, therefore, filed under the provision of the Transfer of Property Act under the general law.

( 3 ) THE appellant resisted the suit on the ground that he is protected tenant inasmuch as Bombay Rent Act is applicable to the disputed premises situated in village Limkheda. Validity of notice was challenged. Dispute about the standard rent was also raised.

( 4 ) THE only question before the trial Court was whether the appellant was a protected tenant. The trial Court found that the appellant was not a protected tenant and the Bombay Rent Act is not applicable to the premises in dispute.

( 5 ) THE appellate Court also took the same view. Both the Courts below found that the notice was valid. The decree for ejectment and arrears of rent was, therefore, passed by the trial Court which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. It is, therefore, this Second Appeal.

( 6 ) FOLLOWING substantial question of law was formulated in this Appeal :"whether the Courts below erred in holding that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act did not protect the appellant as they failed to appreciate the definition of "village" in sec. 3 (16) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933 read with Sec. 325 of the Gujarat panchayats Act, 1961. "

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsels for the appellant and the respondents were heard in support of their contentions. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the bombay Rent Act of 1947 is applicable to the premises in dispute, whereas the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents has been that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings that the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 is not applicable and this finding does not suffer from any error of law. Hence, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

( 8 ) IT may be mentioned that similar controversy arose before me in three Second appeal Nos. 97 of 1983, 98 of 1983 and 99 of 1983 decided by me on 19-3-1998 where the property was situated in village Limkheda and for the reasons stated in the common judgment this Court held that the property is governed by the Bombay rent Act, 1947. Since the matter has been concluded by a common judgment in three second Appeals decided by this Court, the same view is to be taken in this Appeal also.

( 9 ) IT is necessary to mention the short reasons why the view taken by the two courts below is erroneous.

( 10 ) THE lower appellate Court has relied upon the Notification No. GH/j/9/78/ (A)BRA/1871/g/998/n/ (1) dated 4-3-1978 issued by the Gujarat State. This notification inter alia provides that the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 was applied to the premises let out for residence, business and trade situated in an area of Gram panchayat, Nagar Panchayat, Nagar Palika and Municipal Corporation of the Gujarat state having population of 5,000 and above as per Census Report of 1971, except the areas in which provisions of said Part-VII are applicable for the purposes specified in Col. 3 against this serial number under the provision of the said sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6.

( 11 ) IT is thus clear from the above notification that the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 shall apply to the area of Gram Panchayat and the property let out and lying in such area having a population of 5,000 and above shall be governed by the Bombay Rent act, 1947.

( 12 ) IT is no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document