PARASMAL CHUNNILAL CHORDIA Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Advocates for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition challenges the judgment and order dated 30-11-1992 passed by the Additional Collector, Amravati, in exercise of the powers of Review under Clause 21 (2-a) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order ). The brief facts of the case are as under : a) On 7-4-1987, the petitioner landlord filed an application under Clause 13 (3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order before the Rent Controller, Amravati, seeking permission to give notice to determine the lease of the non-applicants. Out of the non-applicants, non-applicants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were the partners of respondent No. 2 M/s. Ramjivan Bangatlal Daga, which was a partnership firm. The permission was sought in respect of a shop admeasuring 80 ft. x 60 ft. , bearing Municipal House No. 58/2 situated at Municipal Ward No. 44, Taluka and District Amravati. The case of the applicant as made out in his application was that the applicant had a bona fide need to occupy the shop. The details of his need, as made out in para 3 of his application, are reproduced hereinunder :

(3.) IN this background, the matter proceeded. The landlord examined himself and one of his sons Pravinkumar as witnesses to prove his bona fide need. The non-applicants also examined 7 witnesses to prove their allegations. In fact, non-applicant No. 5 himself entered the witness box. An application was made for production of documents to prove their allegations. The existence of those documents were denied.