FULCHAND AMBIKAPRASAD PANDE Vs. MANIKLAL BHORELAL SOMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Writ Petition by tenants challenging the orders passed by the Rent Controller as also the Collector by which the application filed by the respondent/landlord asking for a permission to issue quit notice has been allowed.

(2.) AN application came to be made in this case by the landlord under various counts. The present application has been filed on 31-7-1986, under clause 13 (3) (iii), (iv), (v), (viii) and (ix) of the C. P and Berar Letting of houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter called ' the Rent Control order" ). The contention of the landlord in this application was that though initially these premises were given on lease for running a milk business, the tenant had inducted the original non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 Shashikant and harish as the sub-tenants and those sub-tenants had started a hotel. It was inter-alia contended by the landlord in his application that the induction of original Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 i. e. the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 herein was without his permission and that the present Petitioner No. 1 was recovering the rent from the Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. On the question of subtenancy, it is also contended that the entire tenement was occupied by petitioner Nos, 2 and 3 and in fact, the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had paid huge amount to non-applicant i. e. the Petitioner No. 1. On the question of Clause 13 (3) (v) of the Rent Control order, the plea was that the Petitioner No 1 had constructed a huge bungalow near Sant Tukaram Hospital, akola where he had started the business of hotel, kirana and flour mill. It was prayed that the Petitioner No. 1 did not need the premises at all and he had left the premises inducting the Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 particularly because he had no interest left As regards Clause 13 (3) (iv) of the Rent Control order, it was pointed out by the landlord that in fact the Petitioner No. 1 had specifically agreed that he would not let out the premises to anybody nor would induct anybody else for using the premises in question and the petitioner No. 1 by the inducting the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had committed a breach of this agreement. It is also pointed out that in fact, the Petitioner no. 1 had specifically agreed at the time of taking the premises on rent that he would do the business of selling milk only and would not run any hotel or a restaurant or so. However, in breach of this covenant, the Petitioner No. 1 ran a restaurant called "pande Uphar Gruha". It was also contended that the "pande Uphar Gruha" was closed and the new hotel was opened with the aid of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who started running the business of hotel. It was, therefore, contended that the original purpose was completely changed. As regards the plea on Clause 13 (3) (viii) and (ix) of the rent Control Order, it was contended that the hotel business ran by the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 was causing nuisance to the landlord who was having his residential premises in the same building. It was contended further that unauthorised pan-shop was opened by the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 which attracted unsocial elements and that the said petitioners were doing the business of gambling (Warali-Matka ). It is also said as regards the plea of nuisance that because of running of Bhatti and because of storing of inflammable articles, there was lot of nuisance caused. A common plea was, therefore, raised that the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were doing the acts of waste and were using the premises in such a way so as to endanger the premises, besides causing the nuisance to the landlord who was staying in the same building.

(3.) THIS application was opposed by the tenants. However, strangely enough, it was tried to be pleaded by the Petitioner No. 1 that though there were the agreements prohibiting the user of the premises for the purposes of hotel, they were only nominal. It was said further that the landlord was a lawyer and used to prepare all kinds of documents which used to be blindly signed by the Petitioner No. 1. The occupation of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 was admitted. However, it was contended that the Petitioner No. 1 had entered into a partnership with Petitioner Nos 2 and 3 for the purposes of running a hotel and as such, there was no sub-letting to petitioner No. 2 and as regards the change of user, the plea raised by the petitioners was that in fact immediately after the induction of Petitioner No. 1 as the tenant, besides selling milk he had started a hotel business and that was never objected to by the landlord for a period of 15 years and that it was only for the first time in the year 1981 that the landlord had served the Petitioner No. 1 with a notice disapproving the user of the tenanted premises for the purpose of a restaurant. The contentions regarding the alternate accommodation having been secured by the tenant were also opposed on the ground that in fact the Petitioner No 1 had required and was always in need of the premises in question because he was running a hotel in partnership with the Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 The other contentions also came to be opposed by raising the pleas that there was no nuisance caused and that there was also no waste effected because of the acts of the petitioners, either No. 1 or Nos. 2 and 3.