JUDGMENT : - These writ petitions are filed by landlord Ismailbhai challenging the reversing orders passed by Appellate Authority thereby refusing permission to him to terminate tenancy of respective tenants and rejecting his claim on account of bona fide need under clause 13(3)(vi) of C. P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949; hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order in two cases and under clauses 13(3)(v) and (vi) thereof in one matter . The suit premises are situated at Akola and has got house number 75. It is a four storeyed building in which there are four blocks on ground floor facing main road and godowns behind these blocks. The last block situated on right - hand side comer of the building admeasuring 8 feet x 6 feet was in occupation of one Sultan Dastgir (as tenant) who vacated the same during pendency of proceedings. The remaining three blocks are having frontage of 14 feet each on main road while their depth is 17 feet i.e. each is having area of 238 square feet. The shop block on extreme left side is occupied by tenant Firozabad Bangles and a portion having further depth of 17 feet and length of about 48 feet spread behind all these four blocks is also used by said tenant as godown. Shop block adjacent to Firozabad Bangles is occupied by tenant Bengal Crockery Mart while shop block between Bengal Crockery Mart and one which was with Sultan Dastgir is occupied by tenant Narendra Stores. A portion admeasuring 17 feet x 48 feet situated still behind the godown of Firozabad Bangles is used by landlord for godown and repacking of his business M/s Asghar and Co. The landlord claimed that he got the said four storeyed building in partition in 1979 and required ground floor portion in possession of tenants for various business concerns of his family. He also contended that one of the tenants has secured alternate accommodation. Three separate applications filed by him before Rent Controller, Akola were allowed by said Authority while the Appellate Authority has reversed it. In writ Petition number 356/2000 filed against tenant Bengal Crockery Mart, the order of Rent Controller a 30 - 5 - 1994 while the order of Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No. 1 is dated 10 - 12 - 1998. In Writ Petition number 547/2000 filed against tenant Narendra Stores the order of Rent Controller is dated 27 - 9 - 1993 the order of Appellate Authority is dated 27 - 10 - 1998. In Writ Petition 582/2000 filed against tenant Firozabad Bangles the order of Rent Controller is dated 23 - 9 - 1993 while the order of Appellate Authority is dated 27 - 10 - 1998, In fact this order of Appellate Authority is common order passed in 3 Appeals filed by tenants Narendra Stores, Firozabad Bangles and Sultan Dastgir respectively.

2. According to the respective tenants/respondents before this Court, the landlord has failed to prove his need and the alleged partition is a mala fide exercises undertaken only with a view to evict them. The landlord in all three writ petitions is same, need pleaded by him is almost identical, the defence of tenants is also identical and in fact impugned order in two writ petitions passed by Appellate Authority is common (in two appeals). Hence, as per request made by parties, all these three writ petitions are heard together.

3. In all three cases landlord sought permission under clause (vii) on the ground that the premises could not be put to the use sought for without alterations and repairs. It is apparent that landlord wishes to effect these alterations and repairs to make the premises suitable and useful for business purposes of either himself or his family members. Thus, after securing eviction of tenants, alterations and repairs are desired by him. No alterations or repairs are proposed if he does not get permission to evict them. In short, it is not the case of applicant landlord that necessary repairs/alterations are to be carried out and hence, there is no question of seeking permission un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document