The landlord's testimony is not mandatory to establish bona fide requirement under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order.

Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - C. P. AND BERAR LETTING OF HOUSES AND RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1949 - CLAUSE 13(3)(VI) - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT OF LANDLORD - EVIDENCE - LANDLORD'S TESTIMONY NOT MANDATORY - OTHER EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT.
Fact of the Case:

Landlady sought permission to terminate tenancy of petitioners on grounds of habitual default, need for bona fide occupation, and acts of waste. Rent Controller and appellate authority granted permission. Petitioners challenged orders, arguing that landlady's failure to testify regarding her need was fatal.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the landlady's failure to testify regarding her need for the premises did not automatically bar her claim. The court found that the evidence presented by the landlady, including the size of her family and the inadequacy of her current accommodation, was sufficient to establish her bona fide requirement.
Issues: Whether the landlord's testimony is mandatory to establish bona fide requirement under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlord's testimony is not mandatory to establish bona fide requirement under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. The court reasoned that the requirement can be established from the circumstances brought on record and that the landlord can adduce any evidence to satisfy the court or the Rent Controller.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the landlady had established her bona fide requirement for the premises and that the authorities below had not erred in granting permission to terminate the tenancy.

JUDGMENT - Ginwala J. - On 25-7-1973 respondent No. 1 (hereinafter refer red to as 'the landlady') purchased a house consisting of three storeys and situated in the town of Amravati. The ground floor was being (Used for non-residential purposes and the first and second floors which consist of several rooms, had been let out to some tenants for residential purposes. One room on the first floor and three rooms on the second floor were in the occupation of the petitioners as tenants at a monthly rental of Rs. 25/-. On 13-8-1973 the landlady made an application to the Rent Controller (respondent No. 3) under Clause 13(3) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses end Rent Control Order, 1949 (here-inafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Order') for permission to give •notice to determine the tenancy of the petitioners on the ground that they were habitual defaulters, that she needed the house for the pur poses of her bona fide occupation and that the petitioners were commit ting acts of waste which were likely to impair the value or utility of the house. In short, permission was sought Under clause 13(3)(ii)(vi) and (viii) of the Rent Control Order. The petitioners resisted this application by filing written statement. Besides the petitioners, the landlady had also made similar appplications against other three tenants occupying rest of the first and the second floor. Against them also she sought permisision to give notice to quit on the ground that she needed the whole of the house for the purposes of bona fide occu pation. Both the parties led evidence before the Rent Controller in support of their respective contentions. All the four applications were consolidated by the Rent Controller and common evidence was record ed. By his order passed on 7-2-1975 the Rent Controller amongst other findings held that the one room in which the landlady and mem bers of her family were residiing in a farm-house at Mhaska was incon venient and insufficient and-unsuitable for the purposes of their resi dence and that the landlady needed the house in question for her bona fide residence. The Rent Controller consequently granted permission) to the landlady to serve notice on the petitioners and other tenants on this ground amongst others with which we are not concerned in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the said ordler passed by the Rent Controller, preferred an appeal to the Resident Deputy Collector who is designated as appellate authority under the Rent Control Order. This appeal came up for hearing on 23-10-1975. On ¦ that day Mr. Malani Advocate Appeared: before the appellate authority and at about 1 p.m. he filed an application for admitting evidence on affidavit purported to have been sworn by petitioner No. 3 to the effect that during pendency of the appeal one Nar bheram had vacated one room on the first floor and two rooms on the Second floor occupied by him as a tenant. This affidavit was sought to be filed to support the contention that during the pen dency of the appeal the landlady had come in possession of part of the first and second' flooms. It seems that the appeal could not be called out for hearing till 4 p.m. on that day and when sometime thereafter it was called out, petitioner No. 3 made an application for adjournment on the ground that his counsel, namely Mr. N. S. Agrawal waited upto 4 p.m. but left for his house at 4-05 p.m. as he was not feeling well. It seems that the counsel for the landlady had also filed all application on that very day for hearing the appeal since the premises were needed by the landlady! urgently. Considering this application the appellate authority rejeot-ea the application made by petitioner No. 3 for adjournment and proceeded to hear the appeal. He passed his order on 27-10-1975 con-firming the finding of the Rent Controller granting permission to the landlady to give notice the the tenants to determine their tenancies on the ground that she needed the house

Click Here to Read the rest of this document