V.R. Newaskar, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a plaintiff's suit for ejectment and arrears of rent.
(2.) PLAINTIFFS sued the the defendant to recover possession of the premises let out to him. The premises consisted of an Otla and an Osari near a stair -case which they had let out to the defendant on Rs. 11/ - P. M. for a Pan shop. A rent -note was executed by the defendant for these premises. The plaintiffs by the present suit sought ejectment of the defendant on the ground that they needed the premises for the use of themselves and the members of their family for the purpose of residence The plaintiffs alleged termination of tenancy by notice to quit. They also claimed arrears and mesne profits The defendant resisted the suit. While the suit was being tried the landlord submitted an application on 24 -9 -1957 under Section 5 of the Accommodation Control Act. This application was allowed on 8 -8 -1958 and the tenant was directed to deposit rent as indicated in the order. The tenant failed to deposit the rent and submitted an application on 25 -8 -1958 praying that he should be relieved of this obligation to make deposit and in the alternative asked for time. His first prayer was rejected but he was allowed time upto 1019 -1958. There was further extension upto 24 -9 -1958. In spite of this the defendant defaulted and consequently the Court passed an order under Section 5 (2) of the Act terminating the defendant's right to defend the suit. The Court thereafter recorded plaintiff's evidence and ultimately passed a decree or ejectment after refusing to re -open the defence. The decree was taken up in appeal and the appellate Court confirmed that decision. This is a second appeal against that decision.
(3.) MR . Ojha for the appellant raised two points in the memorandum of appeal, Firstly it was contended that the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Accommodation Control Act are ultra vires the Constitution as they offend Article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution. Secondly it was contended that on the plaintiffs' own case the property in question was let for non -residential purpose. The plaintiff sought ejectment for residential purpose. This the law does not permit and on that ground alone the suit for ejectment ought to fail.;