Order

We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners. His only contention was that in the light of Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949, because the landlord is having other premises of his own in the adjoining part of the very suit premises, the suit for possession of the suit premises was liable to fail. The said provision reads as under :-

“13. (3) If after hearing the parties the Controller is satisfied :

(i) ..................

(ii) ..................

(iii) ..................

(iv) ..................

(v) ..................

(vi) that the landlord needs the premises or a portion thereof, for the purpose of his bona fide occupation provided that he is not occupying any other pre­mises of his own in the city or town concerned; or”

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners is right when he con­tends that if the above clause is literally read, it would indicate that moment it is shown that the landlord is occupying any other premises of his own in the city, his suit for bona fide requirement of the suit premises can never be entertained and nothing mo