BABURAO SAHEBRAO DESHMUKH Vs. ONKARMAL BACHHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE we have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants at length, we admit this appeal and dispose it off on merits. Since the grievance of the appellants was that because of lack of communication to the advocate at Nagpur, the appellants remained unrepresented when the writ petition was heard and decided on 7-2-1989, without referring to the judgement of the learned Single Judge, in view of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, we have gone through the entire evidence in the instant case. It is only thereafter that on the contention being raised that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, either original or in review, that we have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge to consider the contention raised on behalf of the appellants, whether it was open to the learned Single Judge to interfere with the orders of the above authority in his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the respondent is a registered partnership firm which carries on business in Akola. According to the respondent, it purchased the suit shop admeasuring 367 sq. ft. by a registered sale deed dated 31-5-1976 Exhibit A-1. It purchased the said suit shop because, according to it, it wanted to run its business of grains and commission agency in the said shop which business it was previously carrying on in the rented premises belonging to Shri Narayandas Hiralal Khandelwal who had filed a suit against it for possession, in which a decree for possession of the said rented premises was passed against it. According to the respondent, the appellant No. 1 s father Sahebrao was inducted as a tenant in the suit shop by the erstwhile owner from whom he purchased it. The said suit shop was given on rent to the said Sahebrao the father of appellant No. 1 for carrying on the Adat business in the said shop. The said Sahebrao died in the year 1962. The appellant No. 1, according to the respondent, was working as a Vice-Principal in Shivaji College, Akola. However, the appellant No. 2 who is cousin brother of the appellant No. 1, was living with Sahebrao and his family since he was 3 years old. He was working with Sahebrao in the suit shop.

(3.) IT is the case of the respondent that from 1968-69 onwards, the said Adat business was carried on by the appellant No. 2 in the suit shop and that the appellant No. 1 did not need the same for the said purpose. Further, it is the case of the respondent that since it was required to vacate the premises belonging to the said Narayandas Khandelwal, in view of the decree for possession passed in his favour, it needed the suit shop for its business. The respondent firm therefore made an application before the learned Rent Controller, Akola under Clauses 13 (3) (i), (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, "the Rent Control Order" ).