JUDGMENT - M.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---This Letters Patent Appeal by the landlord is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1388 of 1982, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the tenant's petition and reversed the orders passed by the Rent Control authorities granting permission to the landlord to determine the lease of the tenant under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Order').

2. The appellant filed two application before the Rent Controller the first on 21-2-1974 and Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) (vii) and the other on 18-9-1976 under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) (vii) of the Rent Control Order. In the first application, arrears of rent for 52 months were claimed, while in the second arrears of rent from March 1974 onwards were claimed. There were some disputes about the actual amount of rent, the landlord alleging that the rent was Rs. 45/- per moth and the tenant saying that it was Rs. 30/- per month; but the Rent Control authorities held the rent to be Rs. 45/- per month. By the common order, which came to be passed on 10-11-1977, the Rent Controller granted permission to the landlord to determine the lease of the respondent-tenant under Clause 13(3)(ii) (vi) of the Rent Control Order. In the tenant's appeal to the Resident Deputy Collector, the permission granted under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order alone came to be confirmed and that under the other provisions was set aside. Both the parties applied for review of the order of the Resident Deputy Collector passed in appeal, but both the applications were dismissed on 7-10-1981.

3. It is necessary to set out only the allegations in the second application, dated 18-9-1976, regarding the ground raised under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. In para-2 of that application, the appellant stated that there were eleven members in his family and he resided in Vitthal Rukhmai Temple, but the temple was old and dilapidated and the accommodation in his possession was out of a built up area of 750 sq. ft., which included the area occupied by the idol of Vitthal Rukhmai. His contention was that the accommodation in his possession was not sufficient to meet the just and bare demands of himself and his family members. While denying these allegations in para 3 of his written-statement, the respondent contended that the appellant resided in a two storied building and had two rooms in his possession on the first-floor of the house and that he was the only member of his family.

4. The Rent Controller found that the space of the ground-floor of the temple, was 750 sq. ft. and excluding the area occupied by the temple the appellant had in his possession only 300 sq. ft. area for his use, and the house was dilapidated. He held that there were ten members in the appellant's family including five adults, namely, he, his sister, her husband, his niece, her husband and children, who all lived together, and for a family of that size, the area in the occupation of the appellant was wholly inadequate. The appellate authority observed, while confirming these findings, that the other members were living with the appellant because he wanted them to live with him and he had neither a wife nor a progeny and their stay was not of a short duration, but for all purposes; they were the members of the family and this fact was proved beyond doubt by the documents like the voters list.

5. This position is also apparent from the observations in para 2 of the learned Single Judge's Judgement, and the position that those relations were residing with the appellant for the period of 4 to 5 years was not questioned before him. What was urged on behalf of the respondent and found favour with the learned Single Judge was that all the relations, who resided with the appellant, could not be said to be his dependents, because admittedly the husband of his sister was an earnin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document