GAVAI B.R., J.: - Both these writ petitions challenge the order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Akola in Revenue Appeal No. BRA-13(3)/Akot/66/1989-90 by which the Resident Deputy Collector, Akola has maintained the order passed by the House Rent Controller, Akot dated 29-5-1989 in Revenue Case No. BRA-13(3)/Akot-3/1988-89. The House Rent Controller, Akola by order dated 29-5-1989 had granted permission to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 891/92 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”) to issue quit notice to the respondents in the said petition.

2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 891/92 is the landlord/original applicant and is respondent in Writ Petition No. 465/92 (hereinafter referred to as “the landlord”). The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 465/92 are the tenants/original non-applicants who are respondents in Writ Petition No. 891/92 (hereinafter referred to as “the tenants”).

3. The factual background giving rise to the filing of the present petition is as under:-

That the landlord, who claims to be owner of the suit site filed an application for permission to issue quit notice to the tenant under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii), (v), (vi), (vii) and (ix) of the Rent Control Order. The applicant/landlord claimed the ownership of the suit property by virtue of gift to him by his grandfather Girdharilal Lakhotiya in the year 1973. According to the applicant/landlord, after the said gift, he became the owner of the property and also became the landlord of the tenants of the property gifted to him. It is alleged by the applicant/landlord that after he became owner and landlord of the premises, the other tenants stalled paying rent to him. It is further averred in the application that Girdharilal Lakhotiya expired at Akot on 5-2-1988 and that before his death be also executed a Will, first on 2-5-1985 and also on 22-1-1988 and that the said Wills were registered by the Competent Authority on 27-7-1988.

4. It is averred by the applicant/landlord that the suit site was rented out to Narayan Nagosa Raut at a monthly rent of Rs. 12/- and that the month of tenancy was from first of each English calendar month with liability to pay rent at the end of each month. The applicant/landlord has admitted in the application that the structure in fact belonged to the deceased Narayan. However, it is averred that assuming without admitting that the deceased Narayan as well as non-applicants are tenants of the open site along with the structure. It is averred that it was the liability of the deceased Narayan and after him the non-applicants in the application to pay rent at the end of each month. It is averred that “Narayan and non-applicants continued to remain in arrears of rent since 1-5-1982 in spite of oral demands, and a notice was given by the applicant on 3-5-1988. It is stated that in reply to the notice issued by the landlord, deceased Narayan claimed an ignorance about the title of the applicant, it is averred that by notice dated 9-7-1985 an intimation was given in writing by deceased Girdharilal that the applicant/landlord had become the owner. It is averred that the non-applicants had remained in arrears of rent from 1-5-1988 and that they were also habitual defaulters and as such, the applicant was entitled to permission under Clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the Rent Control Order.

5. Insofar as Clause 13(3)(v) is concerned, it was contended that the non-applicants have constructed the premises on the Anjangaon road and that they could start the business of Mutton Eating House in the said premises. It was averred that as the non-applicants have secured alternative accommodation, the landlord/applicant was also entitled to permission under Clause 13(3)(v) of the Rent Control Order.

6. Insofar as permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) is concerned, it was averred that the applicant/landlord had taken education upto Bachelor o