SUMITRA DEVI MOTIDAS UDASI Vs. CHUNILAL BHIMJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the land-lady owning Municipal House No. 316 in Ward No. 25 of Amravati town and the respondent her tenant who occupies a shop-premises, on monthly basis, rental Rs. 36/- plus Rs.4/- as taxes.

(2.) The petitioner took proceedings for permission to give quit notice on three counts, in that the tenant was in arrears with rent for more than 3 months, that he was a habitual defaulter being irregular is payment of rent and further that she wanted to remodel her premises and had taken steps in that regard. On the first two counts, serious dispute was not raised and ultimately, on the last count, i.e. the landlady was desirous of rebuilding her house, the permission Was sought.

(3.) Both the authorities under the Rent Control Order, 1949, found on the evidence of the parties that the requirements of Clause 13(3)(vii) have not been established as the opinions of experts on the condition of the house materially differed. The Rent Controller also thought that this was a method to harass the tenant. However, the appellate authority restricted the finding to the contest as to whether the landlady had proved that the house was in a dilapidated condition on the evidence led by the parties.