MAHADEO BARUJI PARSHIVE Vs. RESIDENT DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CHANDRAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner-tenant is challenging the orders passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Chandrapur and Rent Controller, Chandrapur. The Rent Controller, Chandrapur had granted permission to the landlord to serve quit notice against the tenant on the ground that the tenant had fallen on arrears of rent for more than three months, that he has become habitual defaulter, that the landlord needs the premises in question for his personal bona fide occupation and that the premises in question have become dilapidated and the essential repairs cannot be effected unless the rented premises are vacated by the tenant. The Appellate Court has confirmed these findings on all counts. It is against these concurrent orders that the present petition is filed.

(2.) In his application, the landlord had reiterated that the respondent Mahadeo Parshive was tenant of a shop who was inducted by his father. It was claimed that the landlord was doing business in cloth and that there was a partition in the property and in the partition, the chawl consisting of three shops fell to the share of the applicant Haridas. It was further claimed that the monthly rent was Rs. 150/- and that the tenant had not paid the rent for the last 13 months and the civil suit had to be filed for recovery of arrears of rent. The landlord thus pleaded that the tenant has become habitual defaulter. It was further pleaded that the landlord was himself carrying on his business in the rented premises and that room was, very small and was not suitable for his purpose. He claimed that he has to pay monthly rent of Rs. 87.50 for his shop and that he is residing in a rented premises and paying Rs. 275/- per month as rent though he had his own building. He claimed on this count that he was suffering financial loss. He claimed that he wanted to expand his business. He contacted the bankers to finance him for his business. He further claimed that the chawl has become extremely old which was made about 50 years back. It had country tiles, old bricks and that it was likely to be demolished, as its condition has become extremely dilapidated. He further claimed that he had got the plan prepared from the architect for the construction of his proposed shop and residence. Amongst other documents which were filed by the landlord, were the inspection report by the expert, blue-print of the proposed construction and the promise given by the Union Bank of India for providing the finance as also a photograph of the house showing its condition on the date of application.

(3.) The tenant stoutly disputed the allegations and generally negatived the contentions of the landlord. He claimed that there was no partition. In short, he initially has disputed even the ownership of the house. He claimed that he was not a habitual defaulter and in fact, he had not remained in arrears of rent at any time. The other allegation that the tenanted house was required for personal occupation of the landlord, was also denied by the tenant. As regards the plea of bona fide personal occupation, the tenant has specifically contended that it is not necessary that the whole premises are liable to be vacated. Regarding the essential repairs, the plea of the tenant is that the condition of the building was good and that it did not have any danger as such. Even the fact that the plan was got prepared by the architect, has been denied.