# NANDLAL AND OTHERS v. MOTI LAL

- **Citation:** [1978] 1 S.C.R. 238
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-08-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1139 of 1975
- **Bench:** A. C. Gupta, P. N. Shinghal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/nandlal-and-others-v-moti-lal-7267
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

The Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order,
1949, ~haJJ.fer II, Clause 13, applicdfion to munic!"pality constituted subsequent
to notification dated July 26, 1949, whether requires fresh NotifictUion u/s. 2
of the C.P. and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946.
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for evicting the defendants-appellants
from the suit premISes situated within the limits of Tirodha Municipality.
The
maintainability of the suit was challenged on the ground that previous permission
of the Controller was not taken u/s. 8 ofthe C.P. and Berar Regulation of Letting
of Accommodation Act, 1946. The Court of First Appeal, dismissed the suit, but
in appeal the High Court held that the Notification dated July 26, 1949, applied
only to the Municipalities existing on that date, and that as no fresh Notification
extending the benefits of the Rent Control Order to the subsequently constituted
Tirodha Municipality, was issued, the protection of cl. 13 was not available to
the appellants. Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court,
HELD : The wordings of the notification dated July 26, 1949, provide that
Chapter II of the Rent Control Order extends to "all the Municipalities" in the
State. No fresh notification was therefore necessary to extend the benefit of the
Rent Control Order to a subsequently constituted Municipality.
Tirodha was
constituted as a Municipality on June 12, 1956, and the provisions of Chapter ll
became applicable to it from that date.
f239E-F1

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
238
NANDLAL AND OTHERS
v.
MOTI LAL
August 1, 1977
(A. C. GUPTA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.]
The Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order,
1949, ~haJJ.fer II, Clause 13, applicdfion to munic!"pality constituted subsequent
to notification dated July 26, 1949, whether requires fresh NotifictUion u/s. 2
of the C.P. and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946.
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for evicting the defendants-appellants
from the suit premISes situated within the limits of Tirodha Municipality.
The
maintainability of the suit was challenged on the ground that previous permission
of the Controller was not taken u/s. 8 ofthe C.P. and Berar Regulation of Letting
of Accommodation Act, 1946. The Court of First Appeal, dismissed the suit, but
in appeal the High Court held that the Notification dated July 26, 1949, applied
only to the Municipalities existing on that date, and that as no fresh Notification
extending the benefits of the Rent Control Order to the subsequently constituted
Tirodha Municipality, was issued, the protection of cl. 13 was not available to
the appellants. Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court,
HELD : The wordings of the notification dated July 26, 1949, provide that
Chapter II of the Rent Control Order extends to "all the Municipalities" in the
State. No fresh notification was therefore necessary to extend the benefit of the
Rent Control Order to a subsequently constituted Municipality.
Tirodha was
constituted as a Municipality on June 12, 1956, and the provisions of Chapter ll
became applicable to it from that date.
f239E-F1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1139 of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
Order dated
16-12-1974 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) at Nagpur
in S.A. No. 195165.
(Dr.) N. M. Ghatate. for the Appellants.
S. N. Khardekar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHINGHAL J.-lu this appeal by special leave against the judgment
of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dated December 16, 1974,
the only question
which has been raised
for our consideration is
whether the provisions of clause 13 of the Central Provinces
and
Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, hereinafter
referred to as the Rent Control Order, were applicable to the plaintiff-respondent's suit for the eviction of the defendants-appellants from
the house and ota situated in
Thiroda.
That clause forms part of
Chapter II and prohibits the determining of a lease without the previous
written permission of the Controller.
The Rent Control Order was issued on July 26, 1949. The State
Government issued, at the same time, a notification under section 2.
of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the Act, directing,
)
NANDLAL V. MOTi LAL (Shinghal, /,)
2.39
inter alia, that Chapter I of the Rent Control Order shall extend to
A
the whole of the Central Provinces and Berar (and the States integrated with the Central Provinces and Berar), and Chapter II and IV
shall extend to,-
"(a) All the Municipalities in the Central Provinces and
Berar and the States integrated with the Central Provinces
and Bcrar."
S
The area of Tiroda was declared to be a Municipality by a notification
dated June 12, 1956, and was not a Municipality when the afore&aid
notification was issued under section 2 of the Act.
The plaintiff raised a suit for the eviction of the defendants from
the snit premises on May 2, 1963, without obtaining the Controller's
C
permission under clause 13 of the Rent Control Order. The short
point of controversy is whether the notification dated June 12, 1956
declaring Tiroda to be a Municipality could attract the provisions of
the Rent Control Order by virtue of the notification dated July 26,
1949. The High Court has taken the view that as a fresh notification
was not issued under section 2 of the Act when th<l Tiroda Municipality was constituted on June 12, 1956, the provisions of the Rent ConD
trol Order did not "automatically become applicable to premises within
the limits of a new Municipality by virtue of the notification of 1949".
The validity of the notification which was issued on July 26, 1949,
under 'section 2 of the Act, has not been challenged before us, so that
there can be no doubt that while Chapter I became applicable to the
whole of the Central Provinces and Berar and the integrated Statei,
Chapters II and IV became applicable to all Municipalities in that
State with effect from that date.
Tiroda was not a Municipality at
that time and did not come within the purview of the notification,
But
it became a Municipality on June 12, 1956 and the notification became
applicable to it from that date. We therefore see no justification for
the argument that the notificationi was confined to those Municipalities
which were in existence on July 26, 1949, and that a fresh notification
was necessary to extend the benefit of the Rent Control Order to a
subsequently constituted Municipality. There is nothing in the wordings of the notification to justify any such argument
On the other
hand, the wordings of the notification are quite unambigous and there
is no reason why they should not be given their simple and natural
meaning. They clearly provide that Chapters II and IV of the Rent
Contra) Order extend to "all the Municipalities" in the State,
As
Tiroda was constituted as a Municipality on June 12, 1956,
the
provi'sions of those chapters became applicable to it from that date.
We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court that
the protection of clause 13 of the Rent Control Order was not available to the appellants. As they raised a defence against the maintainability of the suit on the ground that previous permission of the Controller was not taken by the respondent, the High Court clearly erred
in rejecting that defence and in setting aside the judgment of the Court
of first appeal by which the plaintiff's snit was dismissed.
G
H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978) 1 S.C.R.
A
The appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court
dated December 16, 1974 is set aside, and the decree of the Court of
first appeal dismissing the
plaintiff's suit is
restored
with costs
throughout.
B
M.R.
Appeal allowed.
\
,