Supreme Court of India
DESHRAJ versus AKHTAR HUSSAIN
- Decided
- 12 September 1960
- Judges listed
- BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1961] 1 S.C.R. 665 · 1960 INSC 150
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
KAPUR J.-Tbis is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Bharat at Gwalior and arises out of proceedings between a land- · lord and his tenant taken under the Accommodation Control Act (XV of 1950) which, for the sake of hrevit.y, will be termed the Act.
pp. 665–666
On March 14, 1948, the appellant took two houses in :lforar from the respondent at a monthly rental of Hs. 80 plus other charges nt Rs. 5 per month.
p. 666
On October 20, 1948, the appellant brought a suit for fixation of rent in t.he court of thP. Cantonment Magistrate at Morar under the proviRions of Accommo. dation Control Ordinance (Ordinance XX of 2()()4.S.). The Act was passed on January 2fi, 1950, and came into force on February IO, 1950. Because of the passing of the Act the plaint was returned on i\larch 20, 1950, for want of jurisdiction. Thereupon on April 28, 1950, the appellant filed the suit before the Rent Controller out of which this appeal haH ariso11. In tho suit he prayed for the fixation of fair rent at Rs. 20 per month. The respondent pleaded inter alia that the suit. could not be instituted before the Rent Controller and that the suit was incompetent because no notice under s. 7(2) of the Act had been given.
p. 666
Both the pleas of the respondent were overruled and the Rent Controller held th~t the 11oticc which the appellant had gfren prior to the institution of the first suit was a proper notice and he decreed the suit and fixed the fair rent at Rs. 483 per annum. The respondent took an appeal to the District Judge who upheld the order of the Rent Controller but the question of notice under s. 7 was not raised in that court. The respondent then filed a Revision Petition in the High Court under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held that notice under s. 7 was a condition precedent to the institution of the suit ; that as no such notice was given the Rent Colltroller had no jurisdiction to make the order. The High Court also held that the Rent Controller had passed a decree which operated retrospectively from the date of the execution of the lease deed which the Controller had no authority to decree. It was further held that the original suit was properly instituted in the civil court and the passing of the Act did not take away the jurisdiction of that court and therefore the civil court should not have returned the plaint of the appellant.
p. 666
The. principal question for decision is whether a suit could be instituted without a fresh notice because of s. 7(2) of the Act ? That section provides :
p. 667
"Where no rent for any such accomodation bas been agreed upon or where the lan<llord wishes to enhance, or the tenant wishes to reduce the rent · agreed upon, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, by giving notice in writing to the other party shall proceed for having the .rent fixed under subsection (4) ". All that this· section contemplates is that a notice should be given. There are no words which make it obligatory that the· notice should be issued in terms as under the Act and be given after the Act came into force nor bas it prescribed any particular form. The trial court held that a proper notice had been given and therefore s. 7 was applicable. No such question was raised in appeal before the District Judge and therefore it was not adjudicated upon. The question however was raised before the High Court. In our opinioi;i it cannot be said that the notice which was given by the appellant was not a proper notice nor does the section mean, as contended by the respondent, that the notice had to be given as under and after the Act came into force. As we have said above it is significant that this point was never taken before the District Judge.
p. 667
Lastly the High Court held Lhat the· plaint should not have been returned by the civil court because ,tho suit for fixation of fair rent · related also to a period prior to the Act. Fairly construed· the order of the Rent Controller does not operate retrospectively from the date of the beginning of the lease but appears to us to be prospective and after the coming into opera. tion of the Act the jurisdiction was vested in the Rent Controller and not in the civil court. This point therefore has no substance.
p. 667
In t.he result this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court are set asfde and that of the trial court restored. The appellant will . :..ave his costs throughout. · . · Appeal allowed.
p. 667