SARDAR AMOLAK SINGH Vs. SEWAKRAM TAHILRAM LALWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Sewakram presented two applications on 16-2-1974 in the Court of Rent Controller, Nagpur under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, requesting for grant of permission to determine the tenancies of Bombay Stores through Balkrishna Rekhi and Sardar Cycle Company through Sardar Amolak Singh in respect of two premises used for shop in House No. 498 situated in Sadar area of Nagpur. Revenue Case No. 460/A71/(2)/73-74 was registered in respect of the application against Bombay Stores and Revenue Case No. 457-A-71/20/73-74 was registered in respect of application against Sardar Cycle Company. Both these cases came to be decided by a common order dated 6th November, 1975 by Rent Controller, Nagpur, granting permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order to terminate the tenancies of Bombay Stores and Sardar Cycle Company on the ground that Sewakram required both the shops for his bona fide occupation. Application under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by this order two appeals were preferred by the tenants. Both these appeals being Revenue Appeal No. 64/A-71(2) 75-76 filed by Sardar Amolak Singh and Revenue Appeal No. 62/A-71(2)/75-76 filed by Bombay Stores through Balkrishna Rekhi came to be dismissed by two separate orders passed by Additional District Magistrate and Deputy Collector, Nagpur exercising appellate powers under Rent Control Order on 26-6-1978 and 17-6-1977 respectively. A revision petition was filed by Bombay Stores for review of appellate order in Appeal No. 62/A 71(2)/75-76 and it was dismissed on 26-9-1978. The two petitions referred above seek to challenge all these orders.

(2.) Original applications filed by respondent Sewakram against Bombay Stores as well as Sardar Cycle Company any similarly worded. Referring to paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 it was urged on behalf of both the petitioners that respondent Sewakram had prayed for permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order for starting his own business of Deepak Steel Furniture and expanding the said business. It was submitted that though reference to Deepak Agencies has been made in the application, respondent Sewakram did not ask for permission to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground that the wanted to start his partnership business known as Deepak Agencies in the premises at Sardar. Admittedly, respondent Sewakram is carrying on his proprietary business of Deepak Steel Furniture and partnership business of Deepak Agencies on Central Revenue Road, Nagpur in premises taken on rent. Permission has been granted by Rent Controller, Nagpur on the ground that respondent Sewakram that he needed the premises for the partnership business also the learned Rent Controller, Nagpur, had committed an error in granting permission also on the ground that he needed the premises for his partnership business also. Shri K.H. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for respondent Sewakram submitted that even granting that the pleadings were not clear enough, the parties did understand the case of applicant to mean that he wanted the premises both for his business Deepak Steel Furniture as well as for his partnership business Deepak Agencies. A reference to written statement filed by both the petitioners discloses that they wanted to deny that the respondent Sewakram needed the premises for his partnership business of Deepak Steel Furniture. My attention was further invited to the evidence of Balkrishana Rekhi of Bombay Stores and Sardar Amolak Singh of Sardar Cycle Company. According to both of them market for scooters and scooter parts in which Deepak Agencies is dealing was not there in Sardar area of Nagpur and, therefore, the respondent Sewakram could not bona fide need the premises in Sardar area for the partnership business. It is thus clear that the parties clearly understood the case of respondent Sewakram to be a case for the need of his own business as well as for his partnership business.

(3.) It was then contended for the petitioners that before granting permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order, it was mandatory for the Rent Controller to enquire into the needs of the landlord and if on enquiry the Rent Controller is satisfied that the need of the landlord could be met by occupation of a portion of the premises asked for permission is to be given for that portion only and not for the entire premises asked for. This mandate is contained in Sub-Clause 8 of Clause 13 of the Rent Control Order which is in the following words :