KU KAMAL Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR WITH POWERS OF COLLECTOR, NAGPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's petition challenging the orders of the Rent Control authorities holding that the landlords were entitled to terminate her tenancy under clause 13(3)(ii) and (vii) of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, hereafter referred to as the Rent Control Order. Originally the application before the Rent Controller was filed by Kishorilal and Chandrakant. The present respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are the legal representatives of Kishorilal, who died during the pendency of the appeal before the Deputy Collector. It was alleged by the landlords that the petitioner, who was occupying the house as an allottee at Rs. 22/- per month as rent, was in arrears of rent of Rs. 164/- and that she was a habitual defaulter. They also claimed permission to terminate her tenancy on the additional ground that the house was in a very bad state of repairs and that urgent repairs were necessary which could not be carried out without the tenant vacating the premises. A schedule showing the mode of payment since October 1962 to March 1965 was filed and during this period rent according to the schedule was paid only on 5 occasions. On evidence the Rent Controller found that the tenancy was a monthly tenancy and that the tenant was a habitual defaulter. The Rent Controller also found that the beams of the rooms had cracked and the whole structure had become insecure, and therefore, the tenant will have to vacate the premises before repairs could be carried out. Thus permission was granted to the landlords under clause 13(3)(ii) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order. This order was upheld by the Deputy Collector in appeal by the tenant. The petitioner-tenant has now filed this petition challenging these orders.

(2.) The first contention raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was that initially the rent of the premises was Rs. 20/- and that the landlords had unilaterally increased the rent of Rs. 22/-, and therefore, an excess of amount of Rs. 2/- per month was recovered by the landlords right from the year 1953. According to the learned counsel, if the excess amount recovered at Rs. 24/- per year was given credit for to the tenant, there was no case either of arrears or of habitual default. It is not possible to accept this contention. Apart from the fact that this question is raised for the first time in this Court, the petitioner has admitted in her written statement that she was occupying the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 22/. If this fact was not disputed, it is not now open to the petitioner to contend that the proper rent for the premises was Rs. 20/- and not Rs. 22/.

(3.) The learned counsel then raised a contention that since the petitioner was allotted these premises because she was a Government servant, the landlords could not invoke the provisions of clause 13 of the Rent Control Order and that the tenancy of the petitioner, which according to the learned counsel, was created not by the landlords but by the Allotting Authority could not be terminated under these provisions. The argument, was that the provisions regarding allotment and the provisions in clauses 25, 26 and 28 of the Rent Control Order were a self-contained set of provisions under which alone the tenancy of the petitioner could be terminated. It is impossible to accept this contention. The allotment order is not on record, though the petitioner has filed what purports to be an authorisation permitting her to occupy the house in dispute. This document, which is annexure 'C', only says that "Miss Kamal Niwal is authorised to occupy the vacant house specified above within two days of the receipt of this order". It is not possible to find out under what particular provision of the Rent Control Order the house was allotted to her, but it appears that the allotment was under clause 23(1) of the Rent Control Order. Clause 23(1) of the Rent Control Order reads as follows :-