- (1.)The suit premises consist of a shop. The tenant-appellant was inducted into the suit premises by the landlord-respondents initially for a period of five years under lease dated 1-9-1963. The tenant-appellant executed another lease dated 10-10-1968 for a period of one year in favour of the landlord-respondents. His possession over the suit premises continued under the lease.These are the findings of fact and not open to question at this stage.
(2.)The suit premises are situated in the city of Risod in the erstwhile province of C.P. and Berar. By a notification dated 9-10-1989, issued by the State Government, Risod was declared a Municipality for the first time. On 2-5-1985, the landlord-respondents had filed a suit for eviction of the tenant-appellant from the suit premises after terminating his tenancy. The Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter the order, for short) came into force in the whole of Central Provinces and Berar and the States integrated with the Central Provinces and Berar with effect from 26-7-1949. By the same notification dated 26-7-1949, the State Government had notified that Chapters II and IV of the Order shall apply to all the Municipalities in the Central Provinces and Berar and the States integrated with the Central Provinces and Berar with effect from the date of the notification i.e. 26-7-1949. By notification dated 9-10-1989, Risod, District Yavatmal was notified to be a Municipality. With effect from the date of Risod having been notified as a Municipality, the order became applicable to Risod and consequently to the suit premises also as situated within the territorial limits of Risod.
(3.)The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the tenant-appellant is that by virtue of Risod having been notified as a Municipality, the order became applicable to the suit premises on 9-10-1989 and, therefore, even in the pending suit, a decree for eviction could not have been passed against the tenant-appellant. The plea has not found favour with the High Court or any of the Courts below. However, the same plea has been reiterated by the learned counsel for the tenant-appellant before this Court.