USHA SAKHARAM BHIDE Vs. WAMAN MANOHARRAO HALDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioners challenge the orders passed by the Resident Deputy Collector as well as the Rent Controller. Both the authorities have allowed the application filed by the landlord under the provisions of Clause 13 (3) (i), (ii) and (vi) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949.

(2.) THE case as pleaded by the landlord was that the tenant Sakharam had become habitual defaulter as he failed to pay the rent regularly and the rent piled up and he was in arrears of rent. It was also claimed that the premises were needed for his bona fide personal occupation. Written statement came to be filed opposing the claim and it was pleaded that in fact the application was not maintainable against Sakharam alone as it was Sakharams father who was the original tenant and after his demise, the tenancy rights devolved upon all the heirs and therefo

(3.) ORDINARILY the rules of natural justice require that an adequate opportunity should be given to the parties to cross-examine or lead their evidence. However, the allegations made against the Rent Controller cannot be gone into particularly in view of the fact that the Rent Controller was not made party before the appellate Court. Strangely enough in this Court also the Rent Controller has not been made party personally, so as to be able answer the allegations levelled against him at the instance of the petitioner. The argument that the Rent Controller deliberately proceeded in a hurried manner and deliberately did not permit the counsel to cross-examine the landlord and deprived the tenant of the opportunity to lead evidence, cannot be heard as it would not be permissible to find anything in the absence of the concerned officer and behind his back. If the rules of natural justice require that the Rent Controller should have been given an opportunity, rules of natural justice also require that any allegation against the Rent Controller should not be decided behind his back. The learned Counsel offered to make him a party at this stage. However, it is too late now to permit the petitioners to add the Rent Controller as a party, particularly because the ligitation is pending right from 1981 and this petition is pending from 1990. Apart from this, fact remains that in the appellate Court the Rent Controller was not joined as a party though the appeal memo does contain some allegations against the Rent Controller. The learned counsel thereafter contended that it was upto the appellate Court to call for the report of the Rent Controller on the basis of the allegation made against him. In my opinion, it is not correct. If the allegations were made against the Rent Controller, it was for the appellants to substantiate the allegations and for that purpose it was a must that they should have added the Rent Controller as a party personally. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be allowed to contend in this Court that the Rent Controller acted in an unfair manner and deprived the tenant of an opportunity to cross-examine the landlord and also to lead his own evidence. The Appellate court has also as a matter of fact found that the allegations were unsubstantiated and in fact could not be borne out from the record itself. The Appellate Court has given adequate reasons in support of the findings and, therefore, the tenant now at this stage cannot be allowed to take up a fresh opportunity altogether to cross-examine the landlord and also to lead his own evidence. The fact that the tenant has left the premises would really not be necessary to be considered while deciding this petition particularly because it is not known as to whether this subsequent event has taken place during the pendency of the appeal or not. However, it has to be considered only to give time to the tenant to vacate the premises. I am told that a decree has already been passed and this Court has stayed the delivery of possession in the present petition. It will be better if the tenant is given time of two months from to-day to vacate the premises.