9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The main issue is whether sub-clause (v) of Clause 13(3) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, applies to all buildings or is limited to residential houses only. Summary: 1. The civil appeals arose from eviction proceedings initiated by owners against the tenant, a doctor, who occupied the premises for his clinic. The tenant had secured alternative accommodation by building a house in another part of the city. The Rent Controller and appellate court ruled in favor of the owners, which was upheld by the High Court. 2. The appellant argued that the provision in question does not apply to non-residential buildings. However, the court held that the term "house" includes both residential and non-residential buildings. The addition of the Explanation does not exclude non-residential buildings from the sub-clause. 3. The court rejected the argument that similar provisions in other State statutes are limited to residential buildings, emphasizing that it is a matter of legislative policy. The court found no merit in restricting the application of the sub-clause to residential buildings. 4. The appellant contended that the condition "and does not reasonably need the house" applies to both categories of cases. The court clarified that this condition applies to determining whether the alternative accommodation meets the tenant's needs. 5. The appellant's last ground was undue delay in the proceedings due to the construction of the house several years prior. The court dismissed this argument, noting special circumstances justifying the delay and the appellant's intention to retire and pass on the premises to his son, who is also a doctor. 6. The court found no substance in any of the appellant's arguments and dismissed the appeals with costs.
|
