( 1 ) BY this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - tenant challenges the order of Resident Deputy Collector dated 21-10-1988 passed in Appeal under provisions of C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "rent Control Order" for short), granting permission to terminate the tenancy on the ground of sub-tenancy and the subsequent order dated 30-6-1990 passed in Review proceedings by the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that the present respondent No. 1 - Bhagwandas owns one house No. 184 in Ward No. 52 of Amravati. Sometimes in the year 1984, he filed Revenue Case No. 108/71 (2)/84-85 and contended that the present respondent No. 2 - Chhotelal is his monthly tenant of one room in the said house. He stated that the rent is Rs. 60 per month and that Chhotelal has sub-let the said room to the present petitioner, who was non-applicant No. 2 before the Rent controller. He has further stated that the room was let out to Chhotelal for the purposes of godown and Chhotelal in turn has sub-let it for the purposes of residence. Therefore, he moved application and sought permission to terminate tenancy of Chhotelal and present petitioner under Clause 13 (3) (iii) and (iv) of the rent Control Order. It appears that Chhotelal did not appear before the Rent controller and Rent Controller proceeded ex-parte. The present petitioner filed his written statement and he denied that Chhotelal was the original tenant or that he is sub-tenant. The petitioner in his written statement stated that he is the only original tenant. He admitted the rent of Rs. 60 per month. He further denied that the premises was let out for godown purposes and there is any change of user.

( 3 ) BOTH the parties appear to have adduced evidence and the present respondent No. 1 - Landlord produced a receipt book containing 12 counter foils of Rent Receipts. The Rent Controller found that the said counter foils bear signatures of respondent No. 2 - Chhotelal and respondent No. 1 - Bhagwandas. However, he found that insofar as description of Suit house is concerned, on counter foils, it is mentioned that it is House No. 181 and further found that the application presented before it is for House No. 184, Ward No. 52. The Rent controller, therefore, held that Rent receipts produced before it do not relate to the house involved in the application and therefore, observed that the Landlord has failed to prove his case of sub-letting. The Rent Controller further observed that there is no evidence about the fact that the suit room was let out for godown purpose and that there was any change of user thereof. The Rent Controller, therefore, vide its order dated 26-11-1987 dismissed the application of respondent No. 1 - Landlord on both counts.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 - Landlord thereafter filed Revenue Appeal No. 142/7 (2)/87-88 Amravati, before Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati. The resident Deputy Collector heard both the parties and thereafter by order dated 21-10-1988 found that insofar as case of change of user under clause 13 (3) (iv), there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the Suit room was initially let out for godown purposes. Therefore, the appellate authority upheld the order of Rent Controller insofar as this part of order is concerned. However, in para 4 of its order, the appellate authority found that though the counter foils carry a different House number, the counter foils bore signature of tenant Chhotelal and that of Landlord Bhagwandas. It further found that the application relates to house in which Chhotelal is tenant and he has chosen to remain absent in Rent control Proceedings. In this background, the appellate authority found that mere entering wrong number of house in counter foils does not affect the validity of those counter foils and the Rent Controller could not have rejected those rent receipts outright