B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges order dated 31-5-1990 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati in Review Application and seeks restoration of the order passed by the Appellate Authority under C. P. and berar Rent Control Order granting permission to terminate tenancy of the respondents under Clause 13 (3) (vi) of the said order. It is pointed out that the first Authority i. e. Rent Controller had rejected the application.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is landlord of the suit premises which consist of two adjacent rooms admeasuring altogether 264 sq. ft. located at Morshi Road, near jaistambha Chowk, within the municipal limits of Amravati town. Thus, the rooms have been let-out to the present respondents on monthly rent of Rs. 285/- per month. The petitioner filed an application on or before 6th July, 1985 before the Rent Controller invoking clauses 13 (3) (vi) of Rent Control Order, 1949 and sought permission to terminate tenancy of the present respondent on the ground of his bona fide requirement. The petitioner points out that he is science graduate and wanted to start business of selling rubber parts in the name and style as "usha Rubber Products". He registered the said name with Small Scale Industries corporation. He stated that the suit rooms are situated in the heart of business locality and ideal for his business. He has stated that he has no other place where he can start his own business. In their written statement filed before the Rent controller, the respondents have stated that they have taken two rooms on rent in the year 1962 and that the reason of starting his own business given by the petitioner is false. They have alleged that there are several shops which are more suitable to the petitioner and instead of occupying those shops blocks, only to harass the respondents the proceedings have been initiated. It is stated that the relations between the parties are strained and on that count the landlord has taken such steps. It is stated that the landlord and his father insisted for increasing rent of suit premises to Rs. 500/- per month from Rs. 140/- per month and as the tenant refused the proceedings came to be filed. 2a. It is in this background that the parties led their respective evidence and the learned Rent Controller rejected the application on 23rd May, 1988 on the ground that the registration with Small Scale Industries Corporation was valid up to the year 1980 only and it has not been renewed thereafter. The Rent controller has further found that between 1982-1983 the landlord has constructed some blocks in the town and rented out those blocks to others. It further found that the premises of one Dr. Bose, who expired about two years back, are available to the landlord but the landlord did not start business in that block. It found that the landlord has no urgency to start his business. It also found that he could have started his business in any one of the several blocks owned by him.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by this the landlord filed appeal under Clause 21 of C. P. and berar Rent Control Order, 1949 vide revenue Appeal No. 251/71 (2)/87-88 and the Appellate Authority after hearing both the sides passed order on 9th August, 1989 in favour of the landlord. The Appellate Authority has found that perusal of record reveals that the renewal certificate filed on record by the landlord is valid upto the year 1987-88. It found that the landlord has purchased, by Court auction, essential instruments and machineries for starting his business. It further found that the portion constructed by the landlord specifically is on interior side of the building and not on main road. It found that the premises in occupation of the tenant have easy access and more conveniently located and every landlord has his choice in this respect. In relation to the defence of the tenant that landlord is owner of one more block and tha