NANDLAL AND OTHERS versus MOTI LAL

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 238 · Decided: 01-08-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
238 
NANDLAL AND OTHERS 
v. 
MOTI LAL 
August 1, 1977 
(A. C. GUPTA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
The Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 
1949, ~haJJ.fer II, Clause 13, applicdfion to munic!"pality constituted subsequent 
to notification dated July 26, 1949, whether requires fresh NotifictUion u/s. 2 
of the C.P. and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946. 
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for evicting the defendants-appellants 
from the suit premISes situated within the limits of Tirodha Municipality. 
The 
maintainability of the suit was challenged on the ground that previous permission 
of the Controller was not taken u/s. 8 ofthe C.P. and Berar Regulation of Letting 
of Accommodation Act, 1946. The Court of First Appeal, dismissed the suit, but 
in appeal the High Court held that the Notification dated July 26, 1949, applied 
only to the Municipalities existing on that date, and that as no fresh Notification 
extending the benefits of the Rent Control Order to the subsequently constituted 
Tirodha Municipality, was issued, the protection of cl. 13 was not available to 
the appellants. Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court, 
HELD : The wordings of the notification dated July 26, 1949, provide that 
Chapter II of the Rent Control Order extends to "all the Municipalities" in the 
State. No fresh notification was therefore necessary to extend the benefit of the 
Rent Control Order to a subsequently constituted Municipality. 
Tirodha was 
constituted as a Municipality on June 12, 1956, and the provisions of Chapter ll 
became applicable to it from that date. 
f239E-F1 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1139 of 1975. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and 
Order dated 
16-12-1974 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) at Nagpur 
in S.A. No. 195165. 
(Dr.) N. M. Ghatate. for the Appellants. 
S. N. Khardekar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHINGHAL J.-lu this appeal by special leave against the judgment 
of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dated December 16, 1974, 
the only question 
which has been raised 
for our consideration is 
whether the provisions of clause 13 of the Central Provinces 
and 
Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, hereinafter 
referred to as the Rent Control Order, were applicable to the plain-
tiff-respondent's suit for the eviction of the defendants-appellants from 
the house and ota situated in 
Thiroda. 
That clause forms part of 
Chapter II and prohibits the determining of a lease without the previous 
written permission of the Controller. 
The Rent Control Order was issued on July 26, 1949. The State 
Government issued, at the same time, a notification under section 2. 
of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accom-
modation Act, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the Act, directing, 
) 
NANDLAL V. MOTi LAL (Shinghal, /,) 
2.39 
inter alia, that Chapter I of the Rent Control Order shall extend to 
A 
the whole of the Central Provinces and Berar (and the States inte-
grated with the Central Provinces and Berar), and Chapter II and IV 
shall extend to,-
"(a) All the Municipalities in the Central Provinces and 
Berar and the States integrated with the Central Provinces 
and Bcrar." 
S 
The area of Tiroda was declared to be a Municipality by a notification 
dated June 12, 1956, and was not a Municipality when the afore&aid 
notification was issued under section 2 of the Act. 
The plaintiff raised a suit for the eviction of the defendants from 
the snit premises on May 2, 1963, without obtaining the Controller's 
C 
permission under clause 13 of the Rent Control Order. The short 
point of controversy is whether the notification dated June 12, 1956 
declaring Tiroda to be a Municipality could attract the provisions of 
the Rent Control Order by virtue of the notification dated July 26, 
1949. The High Court has taken the view that as a fresh notification 
was not issued under section 2 of the Act when th<l Tiroda Municipa-
lity was constituted on June 12, 1956, the provisions of the Rent Con-
D 
trol Order did not "automatically become applicable to premises within 
the limits of a new Municipality by virtue of the notification of 1949". 
The validity of the notification which was issued on July 26, 1949, 
under 'section 2 of the Act, has not been challenged before us, so that 
there can be no doubt t

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