JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---Abdeali Turabali owns a small double storeyed non-residential house situated on Bhandara Road, Itwari, Nagpur. Haji Chhotemiya (since deceased) was a tenant. The owner filed application for permission to terminate tenancy under Clause 13(3)(v) and (vi) of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (''the HRC Order''). The Controller allowed the application on both the grounds. In appeal filed by legal heirs of Chhotemiya (who died after his evidence was recorded), the Collector maintained the order granting permission under Clause 13(3)(v) but set aside the order under Clause 13(vi). The legal representative of Chhotemiya filed a writ petition in the High Court questioning the validity of permission granted under Clause 13(3)(v) by the Controller as well as the Collector. The learned Single Judge quashed the permission. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his application under both the grounds, the present letters patent appeal has been filed by the owner.

2. From the material on record, the following undisputed positions emerge : Abdeali since last several years is in private service in a stationary cum general shop by name ''Saifi Traders'' for last several years. The house in question is his only house property in the city of Nagpur. It is in possession of two tenants. On the ground floor admeasuring 4' x 11' Haji Chhotemiya was carrying business of selling fountain pens since before 1940. On the first floor there is some other tenant. Abdeali resides in some other tenanted house along with his wife, four grown up sons and three daughters. Sons are not engaged in any business. Haji Chhotemiya had started his career as a merchant in the premises of Abdeali. He lived and carried on business with his sons as one family, each member depending upon each other. In the year 1953 Chhotemiya constructed a three storeyed house in a nearby business locality Gandhibagh. He let out nine shops on the ground floor to various tenants and occupied with his family first and second floor for residence. He took on rent subsequently three non-residential premises on and near about Bhandara Road. Two are situated in one and the same building. The ground floor shop has an area of 11' x 24' and first floor an area of 8' x 22' The third small shop is on ground floor where fountain pens are kept in a show case.

3. The owner contends that (a) the tenant has secured alternative accommodation as contemplated under Clause (v) and (b) he needs the premises for bona fide business for which he has no house in the city. The Controller held that the tenant had secured alternative accommodation. He further held that the landlord's son were grown up, were unemployed, money can always be raised by taking loan, the landlord had no other house of his own in the city and thus need for bona fide occupation was real. Appellate Court also took the same view of evidence as far as Clause (v) is concerned but rejected the application under Clause (vi) holding that pleadings of the landlord were not clear and that he had recently let out the first floor of the house to some one which showed that he had really no intention to carry business. The learned Single Judge took a view that order rejecting the application under Clause 13(3)(vi) was based on appreciation of evidence requiring no interference in writ jurisdiction but interfered with order under Clause (v) on the ground that the appreciation of evidence on that point was perverse. According to the learned Judge the additional accommodation available with the tenant was not ''alternative'' as contemplated under the relevant clause.

4. The first submission of Shri Palshikar, the learned Counsel for the respondents-tenants is that Clause 13(3)(v) does not at all apply to non-residential premises.

We extract the relevant part of Clause 13(3) :

''13(3) If after hearing the parties the controller is satisfied ---

(i) x x x

(ii) x x x

(iii) x x x

(iv) x x x

(v) that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document