SITARAM TENSUKHRAI LEKARIA Vs. V R BHOWARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against an order made by the Collector, Wardha, directing the petitioner under Clause 23 (1) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949, to let the premises to respondent No. 1. The said respondent has not appeared in these proceedings. However, Collector is represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

(2.) THE brief facts upon which the relief is sought under Article 227 of the Constitution are that on June 10, 1972, the present accommodation became vacant and, as required by the provisions of the Order, a due intimation was given on June 12, 1972 by the present applicant-landlord. He intimated that he needed the premises for bona fide personal occupation. It appears that the landlord also filed some separate statement pointing out that the present space available to him was insufficient for the requirements of his family which was of 12 members and, therefore, he did not wish to let out the same to anybody. It was specifically pointed out that his son was to be married shortly and he will also need a separate accommodation. Thus looking to the needs of the family he sought that the premises should not be let out to any one and should be allowed to be occupied by the landlord.

(3.) SOME report appears to have been made to the Collector upon which, without hearing the landlord, on 27-6-1972 the Collector made an order that the application may be rejected. After this, the impugned order dated 29-6-1972 was served on 3-7-1972 on the landlord, directing allotment in favour of respondent No. 1 Mr. Bhoware, a clerk in Collectorate Wardha. Landlord appears to have moved by the review petition pointing out that the order was unjust, for he has a large family and his need is genuine. He also pointed out that a small tin-shed for kitchen has been erected by him to anyhow manage his residential needs. This was itself sufficient to point out to the authorities that the present accommodation was insufficient to the landlord. However, the Collector Wardha, on 25th July 1972 passed an order rejecting the application. Meanwhile a memo was sent to the landlord that in case possession is not given it will be taken through police. Because the application thus stood rejected. It appears, the landlord per force handed over the possession to respondent No. 1.