LexDESHRAJ versus AKHTAR HUSSAIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
665
DESHRAJ
v.
AKHTAR HUSSAIN
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, P. B. GAJENDRA-
GADKAR, IC SuBBA RAO and K. N. WANCHoo, JJ.)
September I2.
Rent, fixation of-Suit filed under ordinance after due notice
)
-Ordinance replaced by Act-Plaint returned-Fresh suit filed-
Whether fresh notice necessary-United State of Gwalior, Indore and
Malwa (Madhya Bharat) Accommodation Control Act, Samvat 2006
(iU. B. IS of r950), s. 7(2).
The appellant, after due notice to the respondent, had filed
a suit for fixation of rent under the 'provisions of the Accommo-
dation Control Ordinance Madhya Bharat. In the meantime
the Accommodation Control Act (M .. P. rs of r9So} came into
force and the plaint filed by the appellant was returned. The
appellant without serving a second notice filed a fresh suit under
the Act, which was decreed.
The respondent contended that a suit could not be instituted
under the Act without a fresh notice, because of s. 7(2) of the
Act.
Held, thats. 7(2) of the Accommodation Control Act (M. P.
rs of 1950) contemplates that a notice should be given but there
arc no words in the section which made it obligatory that the
notice should be issued in terms as uridei- the Act and be given
after the Act came into force.
In the instant case it cannot be
said that the notice which was giveri by the appellant was not a
proper notice.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 24 of 1956.
Appeal by special leave from 'the judgment and
order dated March 31, 1954, of the former Madhya
Bharat High Court in Civil Revision No. 183 of 1952.
I. 1lf. Lal and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for th~ appellant.
Rameshwar Nath and S. N. Andley, for the res-
pondent.
.
1960. September 12. The Judgment of the Court
wa·s delivered by
KAPUR J.-Tbis is an appeal against the judgment
and order of the High Court of Madhya Bharat at
Gwalior and arises out of proceedings between a land-
· lord and his tenant taken under the Accommodation
]Jtshra.f
v.
Akhtar }{14$S(liu
Kapur ].
666
SUPREJllE COURT REPOHTS
I
\
\
[HJ61]
Control Act (XV of 1950) which, for the sake of hre-
vit.y, will be termed the Act.
On March 14, 1948, the appellant took two houses in
:lforar from the respondent at a monthly rental of
Hs. 80 plus other charges nt Rs. 5 per month.
On October 20, 1948, the appellant brought a suit
for fixation of rent in t.he court of thP. Cantonment
Magistrate at Morar under the proviRions of Accommo.
dation Control Ordinance (Ordinance XX of 2()()4.S.).
The Act was passed on January 2fi, 1950, and came
into force on February IO, 1950. Because of the pass-
ing of the Act the plaint was returned on i\larch 20,
1950, for want of jurisdiction. Thereupon on April
28, 1950, the appellant filed the suit before the Rent
Controller out of which this appeal haH ariso11. In tho
suit he prayed for the fixation of fair rent at Rs. 20
per month. The respondent pleaded inter alia that
the suit. could not be instituted before the Rent Con-
troller and that the suit was incompetent because no
notice under s. 7(2) of the Act had been given.
Both the pleas of the respondent were overruled
and the Rent Controller held
th~t the 11oticc which
the appellant had gfren prior to the institution of the
first suit was a proper notice and he decreed the
suit and fixed the fair rent at Rs. 483 per annum.
The respondent took an appeal to the District Judge
who upheld the order of the Rent Controller but the
question of notice under s. 7 was not raised in that
court. The respondent then filed a Revision Petition
in the High Court under s. 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and under Art. 227 of the Constitution.
The High Court held that notice under s. 7 was a con-
dition precedent to the institution of the suit ; that as
no such notice was given the Rent Colltroller had no
jurisdiction to make the order. The High Court also
held that the Rent Controller had passed a decree
which operated retrospectively from the date of the
execution of the lease deed which the Controller had
no authority to decree. It was further held that the
original suit was properly instituted in the civil court
and the passing of the Act did not take away the
jurisdiction of that court and therefore the civil court
should not have returned the plaint of the appellant.
1 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
667
The. principal question for decision is whether a
1960
suit could be instituted withoutExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.