ABDUL GAFOOR Vs. MD. SULEMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORDS under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are petitioners in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IN a suit for eviction and payment of damages for unauthorised occupation in respect of a shop room in Rourkela town, petitioners obtained a decree for damages. On plea of opposite parties that they occupied the shop room on a monthly rent since 1961, relief of eviction was denied to petitioners on the ground that suit for eviction is not maintainable in view of the fact that opposite parties being monthly tenants in respect of the house they are not liable to be evicted except under Section 7 of the Act as provided in Section 6 thereof. Thereafter, petitioners filed application for eviction of opposite parties before the House Rent Controller, Panposh at Uditnagar. At time of filing of the application, the Act ceased to have operation since 4.5.1988. House Rent Controller refused to entertain the application since the period for which the Act, a temporary statute was in force, has expired.

(3.) IT is now the settled law in this Court in the decisions reported in Bengal Immunity Company Limited and another v. Parsuram Behera and others, 59(1985) CLT 444, Shri Jagannath Ayurvedic Pharmacy v. House Rent Controller, Cuttack and another, 68(1989) CLT 821 : 1990(1) RCR 269, Shadi Ram Sharma and Dhancholia and others v. State of Orissa and others, 69(1990) CLT 783, that in view of Section 1(4) of the Act read with Section 5 of the Orissa General Clauses Act, read with Section 5 of the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937, proceedings can be instituted, continued and enforced in respect of rights and liabilities acquired or accrued when the Act was in force.