PRALHAD LALCHAND CHA VAN versus IQBAL HUSSAIN INAYAT HUSSAIN BADRI

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 26-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
PRALHAD LALCHAND CHA VAN 
A 
v. 
IQBAL HUSSAIN INAYAT HUSSAIN BADRI 
JULY 26, 1996 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT! JJ.) 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Celllral Provinces and Berar Regulation of Le/ling of Accommodation 
Act, 1946---Sec. 2-Central Provinces and Bei·ar Le/ling of-Houses and Rent C 
Colllrol Orde1; 1969---Clauses 13(1), 13(3)(vi}-Order granting pennission to 
give notice of tennination becomingfinal-Subseque/l/ suit for eviction-Held, 
a tenant is precluded from res01ting to subsequent events after grant of 
pennission by the Rent Controller. 
Transfer of Property Act 1882-Section 106---Suit for eviction after D 
tennination of tenancy-The protection of consideration of subsequent events 
in the Rent control proceedings-Held, cannot be available in a suit for 
eviction which is a separate proceeding. 
The Appellant landlord applied to the Rent Controller for grant of 
permission to issue a notice of termination of lease to the Respondent 
under clause 13(3) (iv & vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation 
of Letting of Houses & Rent Control Order, 1969. The Appellant filed the 
application on the ground that he needs the house for his bonofide 
residence. The said application was rejected by the Rent Controller and 
Appeal filed by the Appellant before the.Rent Control Appellate Authority 
was allowed and necessary permission to issue notice terminating the lease 
was granted under clause 13(3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order 1969. A writ 
petition filed by the Respondent against the aforesaid order was dismissed; 
E 
F 
so also the review filed by him. The Letter Patent Appeal filed by the 
Respondent was dismissed and the S.L.P. filed against the same was also G 
dismissed. Meanwhile, the Appellant issued a notice terminating the lease 
under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the lease of 
the Respondent and asking him to hand over vacant possession of the 
premises. Since the Respondent failed to deliver possession, the Appellant 
filed a Civil Suit for eviction. The Suit was decreed by the Civil Judge and. 
the Respondent was directed to vacate the premises and hand over vacant H 
131 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
possession to the Appellant. The Appeal against the same was dismissed 
by the District Judge. Thereafter, in a Civil Revision Application filed by 
the Respondent, the High Court or Bombay held that while deciding 1the 
appeal the Appellate Court failed to consider the subsec1uent events name-
ly that during the pendency or the litigation, the Appellant had purchased 
B another house and had stared residing there and thereby the requirement 
or the Appellant was fulfilled. The High Court allowed the Revision Peti-
tion and remanded the matter to the Addi. District Judge with a direction 
to consider the subsequent events and adjudicate the matter accordingly. 
On an Appeal filed before this Court, it was contended by the 
C 
Appellant that the scheme or the Rent Control Order is that the protection 
against eviction that is available to the tenant under clause 13 or the Rent 
Control Order whereby the landlord is required to obtain the permission 
or the Rent Controller before issuing a notice terminating the tenancy and 
such permission can be granted only on a ground mentioned in clause 
D 
13(3) or the Rent Control Order, that the Order or the Rent Controller 
granting permission under clause 13 can be challenged before the Rent 
Control Appellate Authority in Appeal under clause 21(3) and that no 
further appeal, revision or application for review lies from the decision of 
the Appellate Authority to any other Authority whatsoever, that under 
section 7 or the Act or 1946 the Jurisdiction or the Civil Court is barred in 
E 
respect or any order passed by an Officer or Authority under an order 
made under section 2 or the Act and therefore, the order granting permiis-
sion under clause 13 is not open to challenge before the Civil Court; and 
that the order granting permission by the Rent Controller has become 
final and a party cannot be permitted to go behind the order granting 
F 
permission and to re agitate the question whether the Appellant is entitled 
to seek eviction or the Respondent from the premises on the ground that 
he needs the premises for the purpose or his bonafide residence. 
The Respondent contended that grant or permission to the landlotd 
G 
to issue a notice terminating the tenancy under clause 13(3) of t

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