AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thadani, C.J.—This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, U.A.D. dated 16-2-1950 by which he affirmed the order of the trial court passed in pursuance of Section 6(3), Assam Urban Areas Bent Control Act, 1946. The order passed by the trial Court was made upon an application purporting to be an application u/s 6(3) of the Act.
Mr. Barua the learned Counsel for the appellants, the tenants, has contended that the order passed by the learned trial Judge was without jurisdiction as Section 6(3), Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1946, applies only to a case where an order for possession has been made, and that as in this case no order for possession was made by a Court, the application u/s 6(3) of the Act was incompetent.
It is common ground that the landlord respondents had not instituted any suit for recovery of possession and that no order for recovery of possession was made by a Court of law. It is clear from the language of Section 6, Sub-section (1) and (2) of the Act that the bar prescribed by Section 6(1) refers to the passing and execution of a decree or order for possession. Sub-section (3) is in these terms
Where the landlord recovers possession of a house from a tenant on the ground that the house is bona fide required by him for purposes of repairs or rebuilding or for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the house is held and the repairs or the re-building of the house is not commenced or the house is not occupied by the landlord or such person within fifteen days of the date of vacation of the house by such tenant, or the house having been so occupied is within six months of the said date relet to or allowed to be possessed by any other person, the Court shall on the application of the evicted tenant made within seven months of his vacating the house, direct the landlord to put the evicted tenant in possession of the house within such period as the Court may fix.
Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act manifestly contemplates a person evicted by an order of the Court, and not a person who vacates the premises in pursuance of a private arrangement with the landlord, which the landlord subsequently fails to honor in the present case, it is common ground that the tenants vacated the house by private arrangement. There is no decree or order for possession. The learned Judge appears to think that Rule 6(3) refers to a person dispossessed. But the words used in the section are "an evicted person" which mean a person evicted by an order of the Court. The learned Judge was also in error in applying the analogy of Section 9 Specific Relief Act, to the provisions of Section 6(3) Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act As we have pointed out in the absence of an eviction order, an application by a person who has ceased to be in possession of the premises is not competent under the provisions of Section (3) .
The result is that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the applications preferred by the tenant u/s 6(3), Rent Control Act, is dismissed with costs throughout.
Ram Labhaya, J.
I agree.