The High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact of the Rent Control Authorities under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in cases where the findings are perverse or against the weight of evidence.

JUDGMENT-This is one of those matters where it is necessary to exercise the powers of the High Court in order to meet the ends of justice.

2. The matter is with respect to the grant of permission to the landlord to terminate the tenancy under clause 13 of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order). Under that clause the landlord has to prove one of the grounds enumerated therein before the Rent Controller, and on the basis of such proof the Rent Controller grants permission to terminate the tenancy. The present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the landlord or Nathuji) owns a house at Nagpur. Respondent No.1 Narendra has been occupying the said house as a tenant on the monthly rent of Rs. 35. Nathuji alleged that the tenant Narendra did not pay rent from 1-12-1972 to 30-11-1975 and as such Nathuji was entitled to permission under clause 13 (3) (i) and (ii), namely, for non-payment of rent for three months and habitual default in payment of rent. Nathuji has also alleged that Narendra has sub-let the premises to respondent No.2 Bhawarilal without written permission in contravention of clause 13 (3) (iii). Two more contentions were raised by Nathuji namely, that tenant Narendra has left the property for continuous period of four months as contemplated by clause 13 (3) (v), and that Nathuji bona fide required the suit premises for his own occupation. With these allegations, Nathuji filed Application No. 285 fA-71 (2) 75-76 before the Rent Controller, Nagpur, for getting necessary permission. During the pendency of this application, he also filed another Application No. 17- fA71 (2) 76-77 as Narendra failed to pay rent from 1-12-1975 to 31-7-1976. On account of this fact it was pleaded that there were further arrears of rent and further habitual default. Secondly, it was contended that Narendra had unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to another sub-tenant Bhawarilal who is respondent No.2.

3. Both these applications were heard together. Narendra and Bhawarilal filed a joint written statement in the first case while in the second case Narendra alone filed a written statement. Copies of these written statements are at pages 21 and 16 respectively of the paper-book. In these written statements there was a denial of the various allegations that have been made by Nathuji in the two applications. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence that was led before him. As far as the landlord is concerned, he examined himself and one more witness, while none of the respondents have entered the witness box. They have also not led evidence of any other witness. The Rent Controller, by his order dated 30- ]0-]978 (Annexure V), granted permission to Nathuji on the ground that Narendra had un]awfully sub-let the premises to Bhawarilal as contemplated by clause 13 (3) (iii). The rest of the contentions of Nathuji about the default, the habitual default, the non-user of the property by the tenant and the bOl1afide requirement of the premises by Nathuji were not accepted by the Rent Controller. Against this order, in all six appeals were filed. The appeals by Nathuji were numbered as 295 and 299 fA-71 (2) of 1978-79; the appeals Nos. 336 and 348fA-71 (2) of 1978-79 were filed by Bhawarilal, while the appeals filed by Narendra were numbered as 362 and 364 fA-71 (2) of 1978-79. These six appeals were heard and decided by the Additional District Magistrate, Nagpur, on 6-6-1980. A copy of that order is at Annexure VI. The appellate authority dismissed the appeals filed by the landlord and allowed the appeals filed by Narendra and Bhawarial. In substance, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that Nathuji had not made out any ground for granting permission to terminate the tenancy. Thus, his main application made to the Rent Controller was dismissed. It is this order that is being challenged before me.

4. It was contended by Shri Chandurkar for the landlord th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document