The court interpreted and applied Clauses 13(3)(ii), 13(3)(iv), and 13(3)(ix) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, in the context of habitual default in payment of rent, change of user, and nuisance, and held that the Appellate Authority's findings and conclusions were justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT - LODHA R.M., J.:—By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 19-8-1988 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati whereby he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller, Amravati, passed on 29-4-1987.

2. The petitioner (for short, the 'landlord') filed an application under Clauses 13(3)(i), (ii), (vi), (viii) and (ix) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, the 'Rent Control Order, 1949') (for short, the 'Rent Control Order, 1949') against the respondent No. 2 herein (for short, the 'tenant'). It was averred by the landlord in the said application that he was owner of House No. 82, Ward No. 52, Cotton Market Road, Amravati and the godown has come to his share in the partition between him, his father and other family members. According to the landlord, the said godown (for short, the 'premises in question') was let out by his father to the tenant for a rent of Rs. 75/- per month and after the partition, he became owner and landlord and the tenant attorned and paid rent to him upto 31-12-1982. However, thereafter since 1-1-1983 for a period of five months the rent was not paid and, thus the tenant was defaulter under Clause 13(3)(i) of the Rent Control Order, 1949 as well as the habitual defaulter under Clause 13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control Order, 1949. The landlord averred that the godown was let out to the tenant for storing grains, but he has started storing ginned cotton bozas which is a combustible and explosive article and thus, the tenant is using the premises other than the purpose for which it was let out and, therefore, the landlord was entitled to determine the tenancy of the tenant under Clause 13(3)(iv) of the Rent Control Order, 1949. The landlord also submitted that cracks have appeared in the walls of the godown and the said godown cannot be repaired unless the tenant vacates the same and the landlord also alleged that the tenant is also committed the acts of waste which have impaired the utility or value of the godown and which are dangerous to the human beings residing near and around the godown. The landlord, thus, also claimed for permission under Clause 13(3)(ix) of the Rent Control Order, 1949.

3. The tenant contested the claim of the landlord by filing Written Statement and denied that he was habitual defaulter or defaulter in respect of payment of rent. The tenant also set up the plea that there was no specific agreement about the user of godown for storing grains only and cotton was used to be stored by his Firm initially and thus, there was no change of user. The tenant also set up the plea that the landlord himself has been keeping his cattle in the cattle shed near the premises in question and he usually stores Kadba, grass etc. near the premises in question. It was also stated that oil cakes are being stored in many of the godowns by their occupants near about the premises in question. The tenant denied that he committed any acts of waste which can be said to have impaired the utility or value of the godown.

4. The Rent Controller held enquiry. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. The Rent Controller after hearing the parties, by his order dated 29-4-1987 negatived the case of the landlord under Clauses 13(3)(i), (iv) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order, 1949, but found that the landlord has been able to establish the case under Clause 13(3)(ii) and (ix) of the Rent Control Order, 1949 and consequently, granted permission to the landlord to terminate the tenancy of the tenant under Clause 13(3)(ii) and (ix) of the Rent Control Order, 1949.

5. Though the landlord was satisfied by the order rejecting his case under Clause 13(3)(i), (iv), (vii) and (viii) of the Rent Control Order, 1949, the tenant challenged the order of the Rent Controller passed on 29-4-1987 to the extent the permission

Click Here to Read the rest of this document