LexSMT. KAMLABAI & ORS. versus MANGILAL DULICHAND MANTRI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
SMT. KAMLABAI & ORS.
v.
MANGILAL DULICHAND MANTRI
OCTOBER 14, 1987
B
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]
C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order,
1949-cl. 13-The provision puts restriction on right of landlord to de-
termine the tenancy-Permission required under the clause is needed
only when landlord wants to terminate the tenancy.
c
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-ss. 106 and Ill-Read with cl.
13 of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order
1949-cl. 13 of the Order does not restrict the tenant from surrendering
the lease either by specific agreement or by implication demonstrated by
conduct.
D
On 24-2-1970 the appellants filed an application under cl. 13(3) of
the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 for
permission to issue notice determining the respondent's lease of the
premises in question on grounds of bona fide need, subletting, etc. On
28-3-1970 both the parties made an application for recording compro-
E
mise. By the terms of the compromise, the respondent expressly·admit-
ted the claim of the appellants for permission to terminate the tenancy,
and, surrendering his tenancy rights, undertook to vacate the premises
on or before 31-3-1974. By an order dated 31-3-1970, the Rent Control-
ler filed the proceedings observing that the matter had been compro-
mised out of court and since there was no provision for recording of
F
compromise, he was treating the petition of compromise as an applica-
tion for filing the proceedings.
On 18-2-1974 the parties entered into an arbitration agreement
wherein it was clearly mentioned that the tenancy in favour of the
respondent stood surrendered and the arbitrator should decide how
G
much further time should be granted to him for vacating the premises
and what should be the quantum of damages for use and occupation
thereof beyond 31-3-1974. Pursuant to the arbitration, a further com-
promise was entered into by which time till 31-3-1977 was given for
vacating the premises. An award was made in terms of this compromise
on 29-3-197 4 and a decree in terms of the award was passed hy the Civil
H Judge on 16-4-1974.
464
'T.
..
{
~
' ,l
~
-
•
SMT. KAMLABAI v. MANGILAL
465
The respondent wrote two letters requesting for extension of time
to vacate the premises, firstly upto the end of December 1977, and then
upto the end of December, 1980. However, the respondent did not
vacate the premises on 3I·12· 1980 and the llPPellant applied for execu-
tion of the decree. Notice was issued, under 0.21, r.22, C.P.C. but no
cause was shown by the respondent. On 24-3-1981, an application was
made by the parties for recording of compromise to the effect that time
for vacating the premises was extended upto 31-12-1982 as the last
chance. Accordingly, the executing court passed an order disposing of
the execution application as compromised.
A
B
The respondent did not vacate the premises on 31-12-1982. The
appellant filed a fresh application for execution on 31-1-1983. When
moves for a further compromise failed, the respondent flied objections C
claiming that the decree was a nullity and could not be executed as it
had been obtained without the prior permission contemplated under cl.
13 of the aforesaid Rent Control Order. The Civil Court, by its order
dated 1-10-1985, rejected the objections and directed the execution to
proceed.
O
The respondent approached the High Court in revision but his
application was dismissed in limine. The respondent sought special
leave to appeal and this Court disposed of the matter directing the High
Court to admit the revision and hear it on merits and dispose it of in
accordance with law. The High Court allowed the revision petition.
E
Allowing the appeal,
HELD: The scheme of cl. 13 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of
Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 indicates that it is meant to
protect the rights of the tenant by restricting the rights of the landlord.
F
Sub-cl. (l) thereof starts with the expression "no landlord" making it
clear that it is a restriction put on the right of the landlord to determine
the tenancy. Sub-cl. (2) indicates that when a landlord seeks to obtain
permission under sub-cl. (I) he has to apply to the Rent Controller.
Sub-cl. (3) provides that the Ren! Controller shall grant permission if
he is satisfied in respect of the grounds enumerated thereunder. Thus, G
the permission which is required under clExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.