1. The Resident Deputy Collector & House Rent Controller, Akola, granted permission to the respondent No.1-landlord to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant under clauses 13(1) and 13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, “the Rent Control Order”) in R.C. Case No.BRA 13(3)/AKL/1/2008-89. This was the subject-matter of challenge in Appeal No.BRA-13(3)/Akola/1/2009-10 filed under Section 21 of the Rent Control Order before the Additional Collector, Akola, as an Appellate Authority, and the same was partly allowed by an order dated 30-9-2010, maintaining the permission granted under clause 13(3)(ii) of the said Order. Hence, both these orders are subject-matter of challenge in this petition at the instance of the tenant. The subject-matter of dispute is the portion of 10,710 sq.ft. of Plot No.2, Nazul Sheet No.55, situated at National Highway No.6 at Akola, and another portion of the said plot admeasuring 3,410 sq.ft. leased out under the lease-deed dated 16-12-1969 registered on 12-3-1970.

2. The facts in detail are as under:

The annual lease in respect of the suit property expired on 15-4-1985. The respondent No.1-landlord issued a notice dated 10-4-1985 calling upon the petitioner-tenant to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises on the ground of expiry of lease period. Regular Civil Suit No.298 of 1985 was filed for eviction and possession on 14-4-1985. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-tenant forwarded demand draft No.203963 dated 20-7-1985 for the payment of rent for the period from 16-4-1985 to 15-4-1986. The rent was at the rate of Rs.7,620/-payable per annum and it was forwarded under the covering letter dated 7-8-1985. The respondent No.1-landlord, in his reply dated 22-8-1985, informed the petitioner-tenant that he cannot accept the demand draft towards rent and he was willing to accept the said amount towards damages to be recovered from the petitioner-tenant, and the response to this, a proposal was called for from the petitioner-tenant. The petitioner-tenant did not respond to this proposal.

3. On 28-4-1989, the suit was decreed for eviction and possession. Regular Civil Appeal No.199 of 1989 was preferred by the petitioner-tenant, which was dismissed on 16-2-1995. Thereupon, Second Appeal No.237 of 1995 was filed before this Court, and during the pendency of the said second appeal, an application was moved, being Civil Application No.2173 of 2006, by the respondent-landlord for direction to the petitioner-tenant to deposit the occupation charges at the rate of Rs.7,500/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum with effect from 15-4-1985. The said application was decided on 6-9-2006 by this Court, directing the petitioner-tenant to pay to the respondent-landlord directly the arrears of rent from 15-4-1985 at the rate of Rs.7,620/-per year, without prejudice to the rights and liabilities and subject to the proceedings pending before the Court. Subsequently, the said second appeal was disposed of by an order dated 10-4-2008, and taking into consideration the change in the position of law requiring compliance of the provisions of the Rent Control Order, occurring during the pendency of the litigation. The decree passed by the Trial Court was made subject to the grant of permission by the Rent Controller under the provisions of the Rent Control Order.

4. The respondent No.1-landlord accordingly filed an application for permission to determine the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant on the grounds mentioned in Clauses 13(1) and 13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order. This application was opposed by the petitioner-tenant by filing written statement on 15-12-2008. The respondent No.1-landlord filed an affidavit in lieu of evidence and he was cross-examined by the petitioner-tenant. One Shri Kamalkishore Kalantri, the Deputy Manager of the petitioner, also filed an affidavit in lieu of evidence and he was cros