( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, by which the petitioners, who are landlords seek to get quashed an order of the Additional Deputy commissioner, Sagar, invested with appellate powers, made on 26-11-1956.

( 2 ) THE petitioners own a house, which has been given on tenancy to the first respondent Shrimati Rambai and for which she is paying Rs. 5/- per month as rent. The landlords applied to the Rent Controller for permission to serve a notice terminating the lease, on the first respondent, on three grounds, viz. , (a) that she was a habitual defaulter in paying rent, (b) that the premises were old and dilapidated and needed repair and re-construction, and (c) that the tenant had sublet the house to other persons without the petitioner's written permission to do so.

( 3 ) THE Rent Controller did not accept the first two contentions but granted permission on the third ground. He found that the tenant had inducted into the house five persons, of whom at least three were living there at the time of the application for permission to serve the quit notice, and that those persons were sub-tenants, inducted without the permission of the landlord. From this decision the tenant alone appealed. In appeal the landlords sought permission to urge that the order was justified on the two other grounds on which permission had been refused to him. But the Additional Deputy Commissioner held that the landlords could not urge those grounds as they had not preferred an appeal against the order of the Rent controller. On the third ground the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner held that there was no evidence to prove that the persons who were living in the house were sub-tenants inducted without the permission of the landlord and that therefore the application as a whole was liable to be dismissed. The learned additional Deputy Commissioner accordingly reversed the order of the Rent controller and dismissed the application.

( 4 ) IN this petition by the landlords two contentions are raised before us. The first is that. the burden of proof was wrongly placed upon the landlords to prove that the persons who were occupying the premises were not their sub-tenants. It was contended for the petitioners that it Was open to the tenant to examine the persons who were living in the premises to establish that they were sub-tenants. On this part of the case we need not say anything because the finding as it happens, is one of fact. Whether certain persons were living in the premises as tenants or as guests or as licensees is essentially a question of fact, which cannot be agitated in a writ matter. It has been ruled in numerous cases that a finding given even on no evidence is not capable of bing interfered with by a writ of certiorari and that a finding of fact must be taken as final however erroneous it may be. In this connection their lordships of the Supreme Court accepted the decision of the Privy Council in Rex v. Nat Bell Liquors, Ltd. , 1922-2 AC 128 (A ).

( 5 ) IF the matter stood there, we would have had no hesitation in dismissing the present petition. The next question which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner committed an error of law in not allowing the respondents before it to establish that the other two grounds on which permission was asked had been wrongly decided. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there was no need for the landlords to file an appeal and that they were not competent to do so in view of the fact that the order was entirely in their favour. The words of Clause 21 of the C. P. and Berar letting of Houses and Bents Control Order, 1949, are as follows: " (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Controller may, within fifteen days from the date on which the order is communicated to him present an appeal in writing to the Deputy Commissioner of the district:

( 6 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the answering r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document