JUDGMENT - Dr. CHANDRACHUD D.Y., J.:---The applicant's father Laxminarayan owned a residential house bearing Municipal House No. 208 in Ward No. 25 at Wardha. The ground floor of the house consisting of four rooms was let out to the tenant in February 1972. The tenant started conducting the business of a grocery shop in the premises. Several agreements of lease were executed between the parties and by the last of those agreements executed on 10-6-1980, the rent was fixed at Rs. 375/- per month. The last of the lease agreements expired on 31-1-1983.

2. Since the respondents failed to vacate and hand over the possession of the rented premises upon the expiry of the lease, the applicant moved the Rent Controller for the grant of his prior written permission under Clause 13 of the C.P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949. The Rent Controller granted the permission as prayed for under sub-clauses (ii), (v) and (vi) of Clause 13(3) of the Rent Control Order. The aforesaid sub-clauses deal with a situation where the tenant is habitually in arrears of rent; where the tenant has secured alternative accommodation, or has left the area for a continuous period of four months and does not reasonably need the premises; and where the landlord needs the premises for his bona fide occupation provided he is not occupying any other premises of his own in the city or town concerned.

3. After the Rent Controller granted permission to the applicant to terminate the tenancy, the applicant issued on 16-5-1986 a notice to the tenant terminating the tenancy with effect from 30-6-1986. In response to the notice of termination, the tenant by his reply dated 29-5-1986 stated that he had challenged the order of the Rent Controller by filing an appeal against the order dated 21-4-1986. In the circumstances, the tenant contended that since the appeal was pending, the notice which had been issued was premature. The tenant stated that he was ready and willing to deposit the arrears of rent in Court.

4. The Appeal that was filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller was disposed of by the Deputy Collector on 9-4-1987. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order which was passed by the Rent Controller. Upon the order that was passed by the Appellate Authority, the applicant issued a notice on 17-4-1987 terminating the tenancy of the tenant with effect from 31-5-1987. The tenant thereupon filed a writ petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order of the Appellate Authority and it has been stated before the Court that the ground that was urged in the writ petition was that the other legal representatives of the appellant's father had not applied for permission before the Rent Controller and, therefore, the application was vitiated. The learned Counsel stated that the writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 25-1-1990. In the meantime the applicant had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 210 of 1987 for eviction, possession and for payment of the arrears of rent. The suit came to be disposed of by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Wardha on 23-8-1989. The trial Court dismissed the suit save and except for the prayer for recovery of arrears of rent. The learned trial Judge was of the view that the second notice which had been issued by the applicant on 17-4-1987 would constitute a waiver of the first notice which had been issued and since the notice issued on 17-4-1987 was not supported by the fresh permission of the Rent Controller, the suit was liable to be dismissed and the proceedings for eviction had to fail. The appeal filed by the applicant against the order of the learned trial Judge was dismissed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Wardha, on 19-11-1994. The applicant in these revisional proceedings under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeks to challenge the orders passed by the courts below.

5. On behalf of the applicant, it has been urged that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document