MANSOOR KHAN versus MOTIRAM HAREBHAN KHARA T AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 19-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MANSOOR KHAN 
v. 
MOTIRAM HAREBHAN KHARA T AND ANR. 
MARCH 19, 2002 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Rent and Eviction : 
Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 
C 1949 : Clause I 3-Suit premises, a shop, situated in city of Rasood, 
Maharashtra-Landlord filed suit for eviction of tenant in 1985 after 
terminating his tenancy-City of Rasood notified a Municipality in 1989 and 
with such notification the Order came to be applied to the premises-Tenant 
contending that by virtue of city of Rasood becoming a Municipality the Order 
D became applicable to the premises on 9. I 0. I 989 and thus even in pending suit 
a decree could not have been passed-High Court rejected tenant's plea-
Held, what is prohibited by the Order is the initiation of the proceedings by 
the landlord-Jn the instant case the proceedings were initiated by filing suit 
before civil court much before the Order became applicable to the premises-
The Order is not retrospective in operation-It does not affect the validity of 
E the proceedings initiated before the date on which the Order became 
applicable-Clause I 3 of the Order does not restrain the Court from exercising 
its power to pass a decree of eviction-A// that Clause I 3 provides is to 
impose a restriction on the right of the landlord to initiate the proceedings for 
eviction-Inasmuch as the proceedings for eviction were already initiated and 
F the Order is not retrospective in operation, it does not affect the validity of the 
previously ins.tituted proceedings nor does it take away the power of the Court 
to pass a decree of eviction in the pending suit. 
Nandlal and Ors. v. Motilal, AIR (1977) SC 2143, referred to 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4266 of 
1999. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.99 of the Mumbai High Court 
in S.A. Wo. 25 of 1999. 
R.S. Lambat for the Appellant. 
594 
( -
MANSOOR KHAN v. MOTIRAM HAREBHAN KHARAT 
595 
S.M. Jadhav for the Respondents. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The suit premises consist of a shop. The tenant-appellant was inducted 
into the suit premises by the landlord-respondents initially for a period of 
five years under lease dated 01.09.1963. The tenant-appellant executed another B 
lease dated 10.10.1968 for a period of one year in favour of the landlord-
respondents. His possession over the suit premises continued under the lease. 
These are the findings of fact and not open to question at this stage. 
The suit premises are situated in the city of Risod in the erstwhile 
province ofC.P. and Berar. By a notification dated 09.10.1989, issued by the C 
State Government, Risod was declared a Municipality for the first time. On 
02.05.1985, the landlord-respondents had filed a suit for eviction of the tenant-
appellant from the suit premises after terminating his tenancy. The Central 
provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 
(hereinafter the Order, for short) came into force in the whole of Central D 
Provinces and Berar and the States integrated with the Central Provinces and 
Berar with effect from 26.07.1949. By the same notification dated 26.07.1949, 
the State Government had notified that Chapters II and IV of the Order shall 
apply to all the Municipalities in the Central Provinces and Berar and the 
States integrated with the Central Provinces and Berar with effect from the 
date of the notification i.e. 26.07.1949. By notification dated 09.10.1989, E 
Risod, District Yavatmal was notified to be a Municipality. With effect from 
the date of Risod having been notified as a Municipality, the Order became 
applicable to Risod and consequently to the suit premises also as situated 
within the territorial limits of Risod. 
The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the tenant-appellant is 
that by virtue of Risod having been notified as a Municipality, the Order 
became applicable to the suit premises on 09.10.1989 and, therefore, even in 
the pending suit, a decree for eviction could not have been passed against the 
tenant~appellant. The plea has not found favour with the High Court or any 
F 
of the courts below. However, the same plea has been reiterated by the G 
learned counsel for the tenant-appellant before this Court. 
Clause 13 of the Order (relevant part thereof) provides as under: 
"13. (1) No landlord shall, except with the previous written permission 
of the Controller:-
H 
596 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.