Occupancy under a void lease due to failure to notify vacancy is invalid as per rental regulations.

1. This is defendant's appeal challenging the decree passed against him in Special Civil Suit No. 16 of 1966 of the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola.

2. The litigation pertains to the shop premises situate at Akola. They are part of house No. 92 in ward No. 29. This house is of the ownership of the plaintiff since 2-2-1954 as on that date the plaintiff purchased if from the previous owner Messrs Sawatram and Sons Limited under the sale deed Ex. 117. Deceased Shiojibhai was occupying all three blocks or tenement's in the said house as a tenant since before this purchase. There is no dispute that Shiojibhai left possession of one of the blocks sometime in 1956. Thereafter the two blocks continued in possession of Shiojibhai on the rent of Rs.1761/- per year. Shiojibhai died on 9-3-1958 leaving behind him his daughters and two brothers by name Shamjibhai and Hanaraj There is no dispute that these three brothers had already petitioned their estate 15-11-1948 under the partition deed Ex. 128.

3. The plaintiff's case in brief is that by Diwali 1958, i.e. by about 11-11-1958 both the blocks were given in possession of the plaintiff and thereafter one of the blocks, namely, the suit premises were taken on lease by Shamjibhai on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. Till next Diwali, (i.e. Oct. - November 1959) Shamjibhai alone was the tenant of that block. At this stage we would like to state that it is this block which is the subject - matter of this litigation. Thereafter from Oct. - Nov. 1959 till Oct. - Nov. 1961 Shamjibhai and the present defendant Kakubhai were, jointly possessing the suit premises as tenant's on the rent of Rs.100/- per month The plaintiff further alleges that after Nov. 1961 (after Diwali 1961) the defendant alone continued as a tenant, and since then he has been paying rent The plaintiff, however, contends that the lease of the suit premises initially to Shamjibhai in 1958 and thereafter to Kakubhai in 1961 was bad and inoperative, inasmuch as it was in contravention of the provisions of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order). Clause 22 of that Order prescribes that every landlord shall within seven days from the date on which a house becomes vacant or available for occupation give intimation about this fact to the Collector in the prescribed form and that he shall not let it or occupy it except in accordance with Cl.23. Clause 23 states that on receipt of such intimation but within fifteen days thereof the Collector may order the landlord to let out the house to a person mentioned in the order. If no such order is passed, the landlord is entitled to let out the house to any person. The main allegation in the plaint is that the plaintiff has not given any intimation about the suit premises having fallen vacant in Nov. 1958 when they were let out to Shamji. Similarly no intimation was given when the premises were let out to the defendant in October - November 1961. With this allegation it is contended that the transaction of lease is void as it is forbidden by law, and that, therefore, the defendant has been in possession either as a licensee or as a trespasser. The plaintiff had in 1985 filed two proceedings against the defendant - one was Small Cause Suit No. 8 of 1965 claiming a decree for arrears of rent of Rs.200/- and the other proceeding was under clause 13 of the Rent Control Order. That clause provides that a landlord can terminate the, tenancy of a tenant only after obtaining previous permission of the Rent Controller. The grounds on which such permission can be granted