( 1 ) RULE. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.

( 2 ) HEARD learned Advocate Shri Rajiv C. Madkholkar for Shri V. R. Choudhary and Shri P. D. Meghe for the respondent No. 2.

( 3 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 by petitioner No. 1 the tenant and his brother petitioner No. 2 who is residing in suit premises along with petitioner no. 1. The respondent No. 2 is the landlord. FACTS IN BRIEF

( 4 ) MAHIPATRAO Sahastrabuddhe was the original landlord. Petitioner No. 1 is the tenant of suit premises through Mahipatrao. Mahipatrao had initiated eviction proceedings which ended in compromise and enhancement of rent. Thereafter, in 1982 present respondent No. 2 purchased suit house from Mahipatrao. Respondent No. 2 and Mahipatrao are related to each other and due to the old age and relation which Mahipatrao had, he has continued to occupy part of suit house.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 initiated proceedings for permission to terminate tenancy on various ground under section 13 (iv), (vi) and (viii) of C. P. and Berar rent Control Order, 1949. Claim was based on :- (i) bona fide personal requirement; (ii) change in user; (iii) waste or damage due to illegal construction.

( 6 ) THE claim was opposed by tenants denying all facts including purchase of property by respondent No. 2.

( 7 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 led his own evidence and of Mahipatrao. He has proved purchase and bona fide personal requirement, and also made efforts to prove other grounds, namely waste and damage, change of user etc.

( 8 ) THE petition for permission to terminate the tenancy was opposed by the present petitioner No. 1 by his own and oral evidence. While he denied everything deposed against him, he specifically averred that the landlord was having own house where he was residing and claimed that he would examine municipal Corporations employee to prove this fact, which he did not bring.

( 9 ) TRIAL Court granted application towards bona fide personal requirement and rejected rest of the grounds.

( 10 ) THE judgment of Rent Controller was challenged by the tenant and his brother to negate ground of bona fide need. In support of challenge to the Rent Controllers Order the tenant has urged following grounds. (a) no eviction proceedings were taken against Mahipatrao; (b) evidence of applicant landlord and his witness are contradictory; (c) bona fide personal requirement is not proved; (d) the transaction of purchase of property by present landlord is fake and he is not the landlord at all.

( 11 ) THE landlord challenged the same order on the ground that the permission should have been granted even on two remaining grounds.

( 12 ) BOTH appeals were heard by Additional Collector the appellate authority who dismissed the tenants appeal. The Additional Collector has by separate judgment partly allowed landlords appeal, by accepting the ground of change of user.

( 13 ) BOTH these judgments are challenged by tenant and his brother by two separate petitions. Though two separate petitions are filed, those are based common petitions and evidence and heard together.

( 14 ) SUBMISSIONS of Advocate Madkholkar are summarized as follows :- (a) The judgment of trial Court and Appellate Court are at variance at least to the extent of point of change of user and the petition needs thread based scrutiny. (b) Judgment of Additional Collector is not well reasoned order, and on this ground alone, the impugned judgment be set aside. (c) The claim for bona fide personal requirement is not duly proved, and this claim is vitiated since former landlord Mahipatrao Sahastrabuddhe still resides in same house and his eviction is not sought. (d) There are contradictions in the evidence of the appellant and his witness Mahipatrao. (e) The ground of change of user and sale transaction in favour of landlord executed by Mahipatrao being fake are not stretched. Learned Advocate Mr. Madkholkar placed reliance on various judgments, which are dealt with at appropriate stage.

( 15 )