JUDGMNET - R.M. LODHA, J. :---Mahendrabhai, who is a tenant occupying a block bearing No. 208/1 situated in Rukhmini Nagar, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as "the tenant") has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20-12-1988 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati in Review Case No. 38/71(2)/88-89 allowing partly the review application and consequently permitting the respondent - landlord (hereinafter referred to as "the Landlord") to issue a quit notice to the tenant under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Order").

2. The relevant facts are that the tenant took the premises in dispute from the original owner Vishwanath Bundamal Sachdeo on rent of Rs. 150/- p.m. excluding the electricity charges. The landlord purchased the property comprising southern side half portion of the house bearing No. 208/1-2 situated in Rukhmini Nagar, Amravati including the permises in question from the original owner Vishwanath Bundamal Sachdeo by registered sale-deed executed in his favour on 30-3-1965. The landlord occupied a block of three rooms of the property purchased by him. On 5-3-1986 the landlord filed an application for grant of permission to issue quit notice to the tenant under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order before the Rent Controller. It was averred in the said application that the tenant was the monthly tenant in the premises in question. The tenant has not paid the rent regularly at the expiry of the every tenancy month and has only paid the rent till 30-4-1984 and from 1-5-1984 to 29-8-1986 the rent has fallen due and is outstanding. The landlord thus averred that not only the rent of more than three months has fallen due, but the tenant is also a habitual defaulter. The landlord annexed a schedule of payment of rent to show the conduct of the tenant that he was habitually in arrears with rent. The landlord also set out the ground of bona fide need and it was averred in the application that he has a large family comprising of himself, his father, wife, son and daughter and his brother, brothers wife and nephew, and all of them are residing in the adjacent block of three rooms and kitchen, which is not sufficient for the family of the landlord and the premises in question are required bona fide for his residence.

3. The tenant contested the application of the landlord filed under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order and denied that he has committed any default in payment of rent as alleged or was habitually defaulter within the meaning of Clause 13(3)(i) and (ii). As regards the need, the tenant has denied that the premises were required bona fide by the landlord. On the other hand, according to the tenant, the landlord wanted to increase the rent to which the tenant was not agreeable and, therefore, the said ground has been set out mala fidely.

4. The Rent Controller after holding an inquiry and hearing the Counsel for the parties concluded that the tenant was the defaulter within the meaning of Clause 13(3)(i) and was also a habitual defaulter under Clause 13(3)(ii). The Rent Controller found that the premises in question are required by the landlord for his bona fide occupation and, therefore, granted the permission to the landlord to issue the quit notice to the tenant under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order by his order dated 30-10-1987.

5. The tenant dissatisfied with the order of the Rent Controller, Amravati, passed on 30-10-1987 carried appeal to the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati. The Appellate Authority did not agree with the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and held that the grounds set out by the landlord under Clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) are not proved. As regards the ground of bona fide occupation under Clause 13(3)(vi), the Appellate Authority found that Dr. Vilas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document