JUDGMENT - G.D. PATEL, J.:---The Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge of this Court on 26th April, 1988 in Writ Petition No. 1305 of 1986. By that petition the respondent-tenants had challenged the order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati, rejecting their application for restoration of possession under Clause 13(4) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (here inafter referred to as "the Rent Control Order"). The circumstances leading to the filing of the said application arose as narrated below :

2. The original owner of the property in dispute was one Laxminarayan Vyankatesh Mudliyar. The appellant Nos. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of Laxminarayan, the erstwhile owner of the said property. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the partners of Rasik Stores, a partnership firm, who was a tenant occupying the three storied building on a monthly rent as fixed between them and the landlord.

3. In the year 1957, Laxminarayan applied for grant of permission under Clause 13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order. The case was registered as Revenue Case No. 384/72(2) of 1957-58. The application was rejected vide order passed on 5-2-1962. Laxminarayan hence preferred an appeal to the Resident Deputy Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the R.D.C."). The R.D.C. allowed the appeal only in respect of the ground of bona fide residence under Clause 12(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. This order was passed on 11-3-1963. After lapse of some time suo motu review proceedings were initiated by the R.D.C. himself in order to ascertain the extent of the need of the landlord. By order dated 1-1-1964 the R.D.C. limited the permission in respect of the entire first and second floors as also the two rooms on the ground floor. The order passed by the R.D.C. came to be confirmed in Writ Petition Nos. 481 of 1964 and 549 of 1964. The case was, however, remanded to the R.D.C. for determining as to what portion of the hall should be granted to the landlord for creating a passage as an access to the premises. The original owner Laxminarayan Mudliyar died on 24th May, 1967. The appellant Nos. 1 to 4 being the legal representatives continued the proceedings. The R.D.C. by this order dated 18-10-1967 allowed the creation of a passage 4 feet wide in frontal portion of the hall parallel to left side wall. The civil suit was instituted after quit notice was served on the respondent-tenants seeking possession of the premises. A decree for possession came to be passed on 23-3-1977 and possession of the premises was obtained on 4-12-1980. It may be relevant to note that it took 23 years for the landlord to get possession of the premises in question.

4. The hall on the ground floor had remained in possession of the respondent-tenants Separate proceedings were hence instituted before the Rent Controller under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii), (v) and (vi). It was registered as Revenue Case No. 220/71(2) of 1969-70. The Rent Controller granted permission to the landlords only under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order vide order passed on 16-2-1971. The appeal filed by the respondent-tenants came to be dismissed. The decree for possession in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 to 4 was passed on 12-3-1979. The possession of the hall on the ground floor was obtained on 17-11-1980.

5. The respondent No. 1, Nihalchand Shah, in his capacity as a partner of the firm Rasik Stores filed two separate applications under Clause 13(4) of the Rent Control Order against the present appellant Nos. 1 to 4. The two applications were registered as Revenue Case No. 162/71(2) of 80-81 and Revenue Case No. 163/71(2) of 80-81. It was contended therein that the suit premises were not occupied by the present appellant Nos. 1 to 4 within one month of the date of taking possession of the premises and, therefore, the possession should be restored back to them. They even contended that the premises were not occup

Click Here to Read the rest of this document