AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this case the facts disclose the decree suffered by the Appellant for ejectment is dated 27-4-1989. Against that, the appeal was preferred on 20-6-1989. Pending appeal, Clause 4(A) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 came to be introduced. Again, Clause 13(A) was introduced on 27-10-1989. Whether these two clauses would be applicable to a matter which are already fruitioned into a decree ought to have been decided first in our considered opinion, on the existing facts. The reason why we state so is, should these clauses be inapplicable to the facts of the present case, there would have been no occasion to deal with vires of Sub-clause (A) of Clause 4(A) at all.
The High Court held Clause 13(A) is bad. Here again, the question was not gone into as to whether in a suit which has already ended in a decree prior to 27-10-1989, pending appeal the benefit of that clause could be had by the tenant. Thus, we are of the view that these two important questions, namely, (1) -the applicability of Sub-clause 4(A) of Clause 4(A) and Clause 13(A) to the facts as available in the present case, ought to be decided in the first instance. This not having been done by the High Court, we are left with no other option than to set aside the impugned judgment. The High Court may decide these two questions first and thereafter reconsider the decision as to the vires of these two clauses, if so warranted. We make it clear that by this order, it is not to be considered that we have expressed any opinion on the vires of Sub-clause (A) of Clause 4(A) or Clause 13(A). The appeal is allowed and remanded. No costs.
SLP (C) No. 6692/93:
Taken on board. Leave granted. In view of the order in the above appeal, no further orders are necessary.