MANIKCHAND HIRALAL KASLIWAL Vs. ARVIND VITHALROA SAWALPURKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties by Counsel. Rule. Heard forthwith.

(2.) The principal question urged in the instant L.P.A. is whether the Additional Collector has jurisdiction to decide the appeal preferred under Clause 21(1) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short "the Rent Control Order").

(3.) Briefly the facts relevant for determination of the above question are that the respondent No. 1 who is the landlord of the suit premises of which the appellant is a tenant filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati and the Rent Controller, Badnera (for short "the Rent Controller") under Clause 13(3)(ii), (v), (vi) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order seeking permission to terminate the tenancy of the appellant. The learned Rent Controller, by his order dated 22-3-1989, rejected the application of the respondent No.1 for permission under Clause 13(3)(ii), (v) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order but granted him permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the said Order only. Feeling aggrieved, both the parties filed appeals under Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order. The learned Appellate Authority maintained the permission granted by the learned Rent Controller under Clause 13(3)(vi) but as regards the permission under Clause 13(3)(ii), (v) and (vii) it remanded the proceedings to him for fresh inquiry according to law. The appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court registered as Writ Petition No. 2335 of 1991 against the order of the learned Rent Control Authorities granting permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. The learned Single Judge of this Court by his judgment dated 24-1-1992 in the above Writ Petition, remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh inquiry and decision according to law regarding the case of the respondent No.1 Landlord under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order.