LexMOHD. MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER versus TIKAM DAS AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
128 MOHD. MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER V. TIKAM DAS AND ANOTHER May 4, 1965 (A. K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAll AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.) Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1951, ss. 15(3), 16(2), 45(1) and 45(2)-S11b-renant claiming direct tenancy under s. 16(2)- Quest/011 as to /awfulness of sul>-tenancy-Civi/ Court whether has jurisdic- tion to decide. Respondent No. I who was the landlord of the accommodation in dispute obtained a decree of ejcctment against respondent No. 2, his tenant. The appellants who were sub-tenants under respondent No. 2 gave a notice to the landlord under s. 15(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Order, 1961, and thereafter filed a suit against him claiming a declaration that being lawful sub-tenants they had become direct tenants of the landlord under s. 16(2) of the Act. The High Court held that the suit WllS barred by s. 45 (I) of the Act according to which no civil court could cntcI'tain anv suit or proceeding in so far aa it related to any matter which the Rent Controlling Authority under the Act wa.' empowered to decide. In appeal to the Supreme Court. HELD : (I) For s. 16(2) to come into operation the sub-tenancy has to be lawful. The question of lawfulness of a sub-tenancy was ooe which under s. 15 ( 3), the Rent Controlling Authority was empowered to decide. Under s. 45 (I ) of the Act no civil court could entertain a suit or proceeding which the Rent Controlling Authority was empowered to decide. The High Court was therefore right in holding that the suit had been filed in a court incompetent to try it and in di.'imissing it. [J30H-131B] B c D (ii) There is nothing in s. 15(3) of the Act to indicate that it docs not apply to a case where a landlord has already obtained a decree against a tenant. If in spite of the decree the appellants had a right under the Act to a direct tenancy under the landlord. they had a right to J move the Rent Controlling Authority within the prescribed period for a decision of the question that the subletting to them was lawful. If the Rent Controlling Authority had the power to decide that question. a civil court would not be competent to decide the dispute in a suit brought within that period. The suit by the appellants had been flied within that period. [!31G-!32B] (iii) The fact that the landlord had not applied under s. 15(3) did G not affect the is..'iue as it was for the appellants as sulrtenants to pro\'e that the sub-letting to them was lawful, [l 32C] (iv) Section 45(2) also did not help the appellant•. That pro,ision was clearly intended only to protect a right to resort to a civil court for the decision of a question as to an interest in property exi9ling apart from !he Act concl'2"ning which an adjudication may have been inciden1ally made by a Rent Controlling Authority in deciding a question which it H had been empowered by the Act to decide. It docs nol authorise a civil oourt to decide a dispute as to the lawfulness of sub-letting for the purpose of s. 16(2). [133 C-E] • • MAHMOOD v. TIKAM DAS (Sarkar, J.) 12& A CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 356 of 1965. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated October 27, 19~4, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 240 of 1964. B B. Sen and M. S. Gupta, for the appellants. S. T. Desai and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sarkar, J. The first respondent Tikam Das had let out a c house in the city of Jabalpur to the second respondent Surya Kant Naidoo. Sometime in 1961 Tikam Das, herein referred to as the landlord, served a notice on Surya Kant, herein referred to as the tenant, terminating the tenancy and later in the same year filed a suit in a civil court against the latter for ejectment. On June 23, 1962, by consent of parties, a decree for ejectment was D passed in that suit in favour of the landlord against the tenant. The appellants who were occupying the premises as sub-tenants under the tenant had not been made parties to the suit. On June 25 and 26, 1962, the appellants served notices on the landlord under s. 15 ( 2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommo- E dation Control Act, 1961 which had come into force on Decem- ber 30, 1961, claiming that as the tenant had sub-let the pre- mises to them before the Act had come into force with the consent of the landlord, they had become his direct tenants under s.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.