MOHD AISANULLAH Vs. RAMESH DATTATRAYA ITHAPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, the landlord has challenged the order dated 13-6-1989 passed by the Rent Controller, Washim, rejecting application for permission to determine tenancy of respondents under Clauses 13 (3) (ii) to (vi) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'rent Control order' ). Along with the said order, he challenges the appellate order dated 23-10-1991 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector with Rent Control Appellate Powers, upholding the said order of the Rent controller.

(2.) THE facts in brief are : The petitioner is the Landlord and he points out that the said premises has been let out to respondent No. 1 - Ramesh vide two lease agreements; first dated 4-1-1995 and other dated 12-5-1975. It is stated that the rent was agreed at Rs. 225/- per month and the tenant was to pay taxes in addition to rent. The premises are being used for hotel business. It is stated that Respondent No. 1 is irregular in payment of monthly rent and he has also not paid the taxes. It is contended that he is habitual defaulter. It is alleged that he has sub-let these premises to his father -Dattatraya Pandurang Ithape - Respondent no. 2 in this petition. It is also stated that the landlord himself needed premises for establishing business for his two sons and therefore, the premises were needed by the landlord for his bonafide occupation. This application appears to have been filed on 26-2-1988. The parties led their respective evidence and -on 13-6-1989, the Rent controller at Washim, rejected permission on all counts. Aggrieved by this, the landlord filed appeal under Clause 21 of Rent Control order before the Resident Deputy Collector with Rent Control Appellate Powers at Akola. That authority has vide its order dated 23-10-1991 dismissed the appeal. Thus, these concurrent orders of lower authorities are challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Shri. J. N. Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. S. G. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.