MURLIMANOHAR BHANGDE Vs. PRABHA BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of constitution of India, original tenant challenges order dated 9-4-1990 passed by appellate Authority (Additional District Magistrate, Nagpur) in exercise of appellate powers under Clause 21 (2) of C. P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'rent Control Order' ). The proceedings were initiated by present respondent for grant of permission under Clause 13 (3) (vi) and (vii)before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller was pleased to dismiss the said application on 7-3-1989. The original tenant/petitioner has expired during pendency of the petition and his legal heirs have been brought on record. The provisions of Clause 13 (3) (vi) are about bona fide need of the landlord while sub-clause (vii) contemplates essential repairs or alterations which cannot be made without tenant vacating the house.

(2.) THE respondent in November, 1986 moved Rent Controller, Nagpur and sought permission to terminate tenancy of the petitioner/tenant under Clause 13 (3) (vi) and (vii) of Rent Control Order. She has stated in her application that she is qualified Medical Practitioner and wants to start Nursing Home in the name and style of "smt. Padmarani Ramkali Bhattacharya" and she is Managing partner with others for starting the said Nursing Home. She has stated that there is no other accommodation available except the suit house for that purpose in nagpur city. She has further stated that her sisters are also qualified Medical practitioners and all of them are going to start Nursing Home jointly. She has stated that she has become partner and her contribution towards partnership is block No. 1 in House No. 721 in which the petitioner is tenant. She has further stated that the premises need to be re-constructed to suit the requirement of hospital and it cannot be done unless and until the Non-applicants vacate the house. Thus, she sought permission under Clause 13 (3) (vi) and (vii) of Rent control Order. This application was opposed by petitioner/tenant who contended that the provisions of Rent Control Order are pro-landlord. He admitted that the respondent is qualified medical practitioner however, denied that there is any partnership or she wants to start any Nursing Home/hospital. The petitioner/ tenant also denied that there is no alternate accommodation except the suit house. He admitted that sisters of respondent are also qualified medical practitioners but denied that they want to start any Nursing Home jointly. It is stated that application is absolutely vague and does not give details about area required for starting the Nursing Home, as to the time when it was decided to start nursing home, names of other partners and details of partnership. He further stated that there are 7 residential blocks in two storeyed building and 4 blocks are on ground floor and while 3 blocks on first floor. He has stated that unless and until all blocks are vacated, reconstruction is not possible and hence, block on ground floor occupied by him cannot be required for so called nursing home. He contended that the proceedings are filed malafidely only to get the rent increased. He farther stated that the respondent landlord owns a big palacial bungalow and that bungalow is sufficient to meet her needs.

(3.) THE landlord respondent examined her in support of her case and she was cross-examined at length by the counsel for petitioner/tenant. She also examined one Architect in support of her case and he was also cross-examined by the Advocate for the petitioner/tenant. The petitioner/tenant examined himself thereafter learned Rent Controller passed order on 7th March, 1989. The learned rent Controller has found that other sisters and their husbands are not examined, partnership deed is not registered. The Rent Controller further found that the case of respondent that husbands of her sisters serving at Bombay want to leave their jobs and shift at Nagpur is not substantiated, no definite plans for nursing home are ready and the evidence of Architect is devoid of any details. The learned Rent controller, therefore, refused to grant permission to the respondent landlord.