LexDILIP versus MOHD. AZIZUL HAQ AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A DILIP v. MOHD. AZIZUL HAQ AND ANR. MARCH 14, 2000 B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] c D E F G H Rent and Eviction : C.P. and Berar uming of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. Clauses 2( 4-A) and 13-A (as introduced by amendments dated 27. 6.1989 and 26.10.1989) and clause 13( 1 )-'Premises' -Protection to tenant against eviction from-Suit by landlord for possession of a plot on ground that premises was not covered by Order-Suit decreed-Appeal filed by tenant-Pending appeal the Order was amended substituting word 'premises' for 'house', in- cluding lands not used for agricultural purposes in definition of 'premises' and providing that no decree for eviction would be passed in a suit or proceedings filed or pending against a tenant unless landlord produces written permission of Collector-Held, appeal is only a continuation of suit-Though at the time of institution of suit clause 13-A was not in force, it having been introduced pending appeal, tenant is entitled to its protection-Though thf- provision is prospective in force, it has retroactive effect-Provision being on a statute book on the date on which suit or proceeding is pending cannot be ignored-Matter remitted to High Court for decision in accordance with law. Plaintiff-respon~entNo. 1 filed a suit against the appellant-tenant for possession of a plot on the ground that the premises was open land and the provisions of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949 were not applicable to it, and that the tenancy of the appellant stood terminated by effiux of time with effect form 1.4.1986. The tenant con- tended that the premises was not open land but was part and parcel of the residential house; and that there was a well situated in the land for the use of the occupants of the house and, therefore, in view of clause 13-A of the Order, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief. The suit was decreed. The tenant filed an appeal. Meanwhile, the Order was amended by substitut- ing the word ''Premises'' for the word 'house'. Sub-clause (4-A) was also inserted in clause 2 providing that lands not being used for agricultural purposes also stood included in the definition of 'Premises'. By a further 280 -. DILIP v. MOHD. AZIZUL HAQ 281 amendment the State of Maharashtra, w.e.f. 26th October, 1989, intro- duced clause 13-A in the Order providing that no decree for eviction would be passed in a suit or proceeding filed or pending against a tenant in any court or before any authority unless the landlord produced a written permission of the Collector as required by sub-clause (1) of clause 13. The tenant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and contended that in view of the amendment, the Order stood extended to open plots and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff-landlord filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the validity of clause 2(4-A) and clause 13-A of the Order. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court. However, when the matter came to Supreme Court, it set aside the order of the High Court with a direction to it to decide the writ petition in accordance with law. In the meantime, the appeal filed by the tenant was allowed and the suit was dismissed. A revi~ion petition was filed before the High Court. The High Court held that there was no appeal filed or pending against the tenant on 26th October, 1989 when the second amendment was published and there- fore, it had to be inferred that no proceedings were filed or pending against the tenant as on that date and thus the amendment was not applicable since the tenancy in respect of the open plot was deemed to have expired immedi- ately on 10th April, 1986 and; that the suit plot was not covered under the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946: The High Court further held that the second amendment brought into force w.e.f. 26th October, 1989 was not applicable to the suit plot as the same would be prospective and not retrospective and, therefore, clause 2( 4-A) and clause 13-A of the Order would not be applica- ble to the suit land. Aggrieved, the defendant-tenant filed the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, and remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court HELD : 1. The High Court was not justified in holding that there was no appeal filed or pending against th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.