http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: NANDLAL AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOTI LAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/08/1977

BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. GUPTA, A.C.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 2143            1978 SCR  (1) 238  1977 SCC  (3) 500

ACT: The  Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and  Rent Control  Order, 1949, Chapter II, Clause 13, application  to municipality  constituted subsequent to  notification  dated July 26, 1949, whether requires fresh Notification u/s. 2 of the  C.P. and Berar Regulation of Letting  of  Accommodation Act, 1946.

HEADNOTE: 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  of  the 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 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  ChapterII  became applicable to it, from that date. [239E-F]

JUDGMENT: 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. 195/65. (Dr.) N. M. Ghatate, for the Appellants. S.   N. Khardekar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the Respondent.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL  J.-In  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  plaintiff- respondent’s  suit  for  the  eviction  of  the  defendants- appellants  from  the house and iota  situated  in  Thiroda. That  clause  forms  part of Chapter 11  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   Accommodation   Act,   1946, hereinafter referred to as the Act, directing, 239 inter  alia, that Chapter I of the Rent Control Order  shall extend to the whole of the Central Provinces and Berar  (and the States integrated with the Central Provinces and Berar), and Chapter 11 and IV shall extend to,-               "(a)  All  the Municipalities in  the  Central               Provinces and Berar and the States  integrated               with the Central Provinces and Berar." The  area of Tiroda was declared to be a Municipality  by  a notification dated June 12, 1956, and was not a Municipaltty when  the aforesaid notification was issued under section  2 of the Act. The  plaintiff  raised  a  suit  for  the  eviction  of  the defendants  from the suit premises on May 2,  1963,  without obtaining the Controller’s 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  the Tiroda Municipality was constituted on  June,  12, 1956,  the  provisions  of the Rent Control  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  that while  Chapter  I  became applicable to  the  whole  of  the Central  Provinces  and  Berar and  the  integrated  States, Chapters  II and IV became applicable to all  Municipalities in that State with effect from that date.  Tiroda was not  a Municipality  at  that  time and did  not  come  within  the purview  of the notification.  But it became a  Municipality on  June 12, 1956 and the notification became applicable  to it  from that date.  We therefore see no  justification  for the  argument  that the notification was confined  to  those Municipalities which were in existence on July 26, 1949, and that  a  fresh  notification was  necessary  to  extend  the benefit  of  the  Rent  Control  Order  to  a   subsequently constituted Municipality.  There is nothing in the  wordings of  the notification to justify any such argument.   On  the other  hand,  the  wordings of the  notification  are  quite unambiguous  and there is no reason why they should  not  be given  their  simple  and  natural  meaning.   They  clearly provide  that Chapters 11 and IV of the Rent  Control  Order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

extend to "all the Municipalities" in the State.  As  Tiroda was  constituted  as a Municipality on June  12,  1956,  the provisions  of those chapters became applicable to  it  from that  date.  We are unable to agree with the view  taken  by the High Court that the protection of Clause 13 of the  Rent Control Order was not available to the appellants.  As  they raised a defence against the maintainability of the suit  on the  ground that previous permission of the  Controller  was not taken by the respondent, the High Court clearly erred in rejecting that defence and in setting aside the judgment  of the Court of first appeal by which the plaintiff’s suit  was dismissed. 240 The  appeal  is allowed, the impugned judgment of  the  High Court  dated December 16, 1974 is set aside, and the  decree of the Court of first appeal dismissing the plaintiff’s suit is restored with costs throughout. M.R. Appeal allowed. 24 1