JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Yavatmal, dated 8th June, 1990 in R.C.A. No. 26-71/86-87 of Yavatmal.

2. Briefly stated, the predecessor of the petitioners, Shri Rasiklal Bhagwanji Suchak, was the tenant in respect of the suit premises bearing Nazul Plot No. 16/2, Sheet No. 49-A of Yavatmal, in Ward No. 16, bearing House No. 17, consisting of five rooms. The suit premises were taken on lease by him from the original owner/landlord of the property, Shri Mansukhlal Narsee of Deoli, in the year 1962, for residential purpose. It appears that the respondent purchased the suit property on 29-8-1975. The respondent filed an application before the Rent Controller, Yavatmal, praying for permission to initiate action against the petitioner for possession of the suit property on the ground 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, 1949 for short). The case made out in the application filed by the respondent, on 4th December, 1976, would indicate that the applicant, his two brothers Dr. Radhesyam and Santoshkumar and their father Rajelal Sukhnandanlal Suroshiya purchased the suit house along with other property from one Kantilal Bhanji Unalkar by registered sale deed dated 29-8-1975. It is stated that the four brothers of the respondent, their mother and the respondent became the owners of the suit property, which was the joint family property. It is further stated that the brothers of the respondent and their mother executed a partition deed dated 14th June, 1976 pursuant to which the suit property fell to the share of the respondent. The application further states that the respondent has, therefore, become absolute owner of the suit property. It is further stated that by virtue of the said partition deed, the premises which are presently occupied by the respondent have gone to the share of his brother Santoshkumar. It is further stated in the said application that the respondent has increased the duration of his stay at Yavatmal from 3 to 5 days in a week and, therefore, he needs the suit premises which are occupied by the petitioners, for his own personal and bona fide occupation, within the meaning of Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order, 1949.

3. In response to the said application, on 1-8-1977, the petitioners filed reply before the Rent Controller. It is common ground that the petitioners have not specifically dealt with the assertion made by the respondent in his application, about partition, but have vaguely denied the contents of para 6 of the application. It is further mentioned in the reply that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide the title or ownership and consequently of relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the suit premises. The stand taken by the petitioners in para 8 of the reply would indicate that they were disputing that the respondent was the lessor of the petitioners on rightful reversioners of the lessor Maganlal Narel. On this ground the maintainability of the application was questioned by the petitioners. It is further stated in the said reply that there was dispute between petitioners and said Kantilal (original owner) as the petitioner had filed application for fixing standard rent, therefore, Radiyatbai and Kantilal were annoyed and they have brought about the alleged fictitious transactions of the alleged transfer of the ownership of the suit premises in favour of the respondent with a view to harass the petitioners and to evict the petitioners from the suit premises. The petitioners also denied that the premises were absolutely required by the respondent for his personal use and occupation.

4. Immediately after filing the above said reply, the petitioners filed another application on 19-11-1977, raising specific plea that the alleged partiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document