SUPER TILES WORKS Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 M/s. Super Tiles Works is a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are its partners. Likewise the petitioner No. 8 Vikas Industries is also a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and the petitioner Nos. 9 and 10 are its partners. Both the firms are doing independent business. The petitioner No. 1 is carrying on the business of manufacturing tiles whereas the petitioner No. 8 has a fabrication unit. The business is carried on by either of the two units on Plot No. 31, situated in Timber Market, Great Nag Road, Nagpur. The said plot admeasuring 12471 sq. ft. is owned by respondent Nos. 2 to 6.

(2.) THE aforesaid property was given on licence to the petitioner No. 1 M/s. Super Tiles Works under a deed dated 8-1-1963. The licence records payment of Rs. 400/- per month as licence fee. As per terms in the licence-deed, the licence commenced from 16-11-1962. The licence was specifically granted for the purposes of residence-cum-Industrial Establishment. The business of manufacture of tiles, which the petitioner No. 1 was to do, was specified therein. Prohibition to deal in timber business was also stipulated in the document. The petitioner No. 1 was held liable for payment of municipal tax and other levies that may be imposed on the property. The licence period was for a period of 11 months. According to respondent/landlords, the property in question was placed in possession of petitioner No. 1 at the commencement of the licence. Though the document under which the possession was given as styled as document of licence, it was in substance a rent note because exclusive possession of the property is said to have been given. The relationship between the parties is that of landlord and tenant.

(3.) THE respondents/landlord filed application before the Rent Controller invoking Clauses 13 (3) (ii) and (iii) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Rent Control Order") praying for permission to determine the lease of petitioner No. 1 M/s. Super Tiles Works. One of the grounds in the application was about the petitioner No. 1 being a habitual defaulter. The Rent Controller rejected that ground and in the absence of any appeal being preferred by the respondent/landlords, the finding as given stands finally adjudicated. The ground of habitual defaulter is hence not involved in the petition.