SHANTILAL WALCHAND KOTHARI Vs. SHANTABAI PURUSHOTAM DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenants petition challenging the appellate order in rent control proceedings commenced on an control application under Clause 13(3) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Contro Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Order') maintaining the order of the Rent Controller granting permission to respondent No. 1 landlady under Clauses 13 (3) (iii) of the Rent Control Order to terminate petitioners tenancy on the ground of subletting.

(2.) Respondent No.1 landlady filed an applicaiton under Clause 13(3) (ii) and (iii) of the Rent control Order for permission to terminate petitioner's tenancy of the grounds that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and that he unauthorised created sub-tenancy in favour or one Pandurang Gulabrao Deshmukh, since deceased, whose legal representativges are present respondents Nos. 2 to 5 . The Rent Controller held that the petitioners was a habitual defaulter and that he inducted a sub-tenant without written permission of the landlady, and consequently granted permission on both the counts. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Resident Deputy Collector with appellate powers set aside the finding of the Rent controller on the point of habitual default, but maintained the finding on the issue of creation of subtenancy. The appellate authority thus maintained the order of tehe Rent controller so far as it granted permission to respondents No.1 to terminate petitioners tenancy under Clause 13(3) (iii) of the Rent Controller Order. It is this order which is sought to be quashed in this petition.

(3.) Shri Bobde, learned advocate for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner cannot be evictied from the suit premises under Clauses 13(32) (iii) of the Rent Control Order, because the sub-tenancy was nbot created by him. According ito him, clause 13(3) (iii) postulates creation of sub-tenancy by the tenant who is sought to be evicted. Shri Chandurkar, learned advocate for respondent No.1 , made two-fold submission. Firstly, he contended that in fact the tenancy ius illegal, then the present tenant can be evicted though sub-tenancy might have been created by the earlier tenant.