1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.70 of 1997. Shankar alias Shashikumar Ramrao Deshmukh ..vs.. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.J.J.Chandurkar, Adv. for the appellant. Mr.V.V.Bhangade, Adv. for the respondents. C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 17th September, 2009. 1. This second appeal is preferred by original landlord/plaintiff. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for ejectment of the respondents/defendants. It was the case of the plaintiff that he had let out an open plot of land to respondents/defendants for running a Petroleum Pump. The plaintiff issued a notice of termination of tenancy to the defendants calling upon the defendants to vacate the suit premises by 30/6/1979. The defendants did not vacate. The plaintiff instituted the suit. 2. The said suit was resisted by the defendants and 2 particular by defendant no.1. During the pendency of the said suit, an application was filed before the Civil Judge contending therein that the suit is not maintainable in view of the amendment to the C.P. and Berar Rent Control Order whereby clauses 4(A) and clause 13-A were added to the said Rent Control Order. The said application was heard by the learned Civil Judge and he found that the suit premises were, by virtue of this amendment, governed by the Rent Control Order and permission of Rent Controller was necessary. Holding so, he dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the original plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. The District Judge concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 3. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this second appeal has been preferred by original plaintiff. The appeal has been admitted by this court but it seems that no substantial question of law was formulated while admitting the appeal. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents, the following substantial question of law is formulated for decision of this appeal. “Whether in view of the repeal of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to proceed with the suit in accordance with the general law in asmuch as the protection of Clause 4(A) and Clause 3 13-A of the Rent Control Order available to the respondent/tenant from the year 1989 till 2000 is not longer available due to the enactment of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ? 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 6. It is not in dispute that it was an open plot of land which was let out to the defendants. The suit came to be instituted in 1980. On the date the suit was instituted, admittedly, the open plot of the land was not governed by the provisions of C..P. And Berar Rent Control Order . In the year 1989 i.e. on 27/6/1989 clause 4(A) was added to the Rent Control Order. After Clause 4(A) brought into force in respect of even open plot of land the Rent Control Order was once again amended in October, 1989 whereby clause 13-A was added to the Rent Control Order. Clause 13-A contemplated that the civil court will not be able to pass decree for eviction in a pending suit where the tenancy related to an open plot of land also. In view of the fact that these amendments came into effect, the learned Judge of the trial court found that the suit premises were governed by the Rent Control Order and he dismissed the suit. Even when the first appeal was preferred before the District Judge, the said amendments and the Rent Control Order were in force. Therefore, the learned District Judge was 4 also right in concurring with the findings recorded by the learned Judge of the trial court. After this appeal came to be admitted in the year 1997, the Rent Control Order came to be repealed. It came to be repealed upon coming into force of the new Maharashtra Rent Control Act, which came into effect on 31/3/2000. Since the Rent Control Order is now repealed, the open plot of land is not governed by the said Rent Control Order. It is admittedly not governed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act now. A suit under general law would be quite maintainable now. In the circumstances, it would now be necessary for this court to set aside the orders passed by the courts below and remand the matter back to the trial court for deciding the suit afresh. The substantial question of Law is answered accordingly. In view of this, the following order is passed. The Judgments and decree passed by the court below are set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the trial court for deciding the suit afresh. If the parties so desire, they may tender oral or documentary evidence before the trial court and upon consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the trial court may decide this suit preferably within period of three months from the date of receipt of record from this court. No order as to costs. JUDGE. 5 chute