C. BALAN Vs. VIJAY SHANKAR KHARE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this case relates to a block house bearing Municipal No. 465 situated on Tikekar Road, in Dhantoli locality of Nagpur City. The house originally belonged to late Shri Bhaskarrao Karandikar and after his death, it devolved on his son Gajanan Bhaskarrao Karandikar. The block in question was taken on lease by petitioner's father Shri L.S. Gopalan from Bhaskarrao Karandikar.

(2.) ON 16th January 1978, Shri G.B. Karandikar executed an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner, agreeing to sell the block in question for Rs. 20,000 and accepted Rs. 1,500 by way of earnest money. Thereafter on 11 -5 -1978, G.B. Karandikar filed an application before the Rent Controller for permission to terminate the tenancy of Shri L.S. Gopalan. In that proceeding Shri L.S. Gopalan filed reply on 5 -9 -1978 contending inter alia that he had already vacated the premises in January 1978. In view of this assertion, the application filed by G.B. Karandikar for permission to terminate the tenancy of L.S. Gopalan was rejected. Being aggrieved by this order of the Rent Controller, G.B. Karandikar preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority under clause 21 of the Rent Control Order. During the pendency of this appeal, G.B. Karandikar executed a sale -deed dated 14 -5 -1979 in favour of respondent No. 1, who incidentally is his son -in -law, in respect of the very portion which he had agreed to sell to the petitioner.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1, who claims title to the block in question on the strength of the sale -deed executed in his favour by G.B. Karandikar, filed an application to the House Allotment Officer under section 28 of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order) for ejecting the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the block in question, within the meaning of clause 28 of the Rent Control Order. According to respondent No. 1, L.S. Gopalan original tenant, vacated the block on his own showing in January 1978, and this caused a vacancy which ought to have been intimated to the House Allotment Officer as per clause 22 of the Rent Control Order and as this vacancy Was not intimated by G.B. Karandikar, the occupation of the present petitioner on the strength of the agreement of sale is unauthorised.