ISHWARDAS S O DAMODHARDAS SINDHI Vs. SHANTABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) Appellant/tenant of the suit premises has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order dt. 8-9-2003 passed by the learned Single judge in Writ Petition No. 1069 of 2003 dismissing the petition.

(3.) The facts, in brief, relating to this litigation are stated as under : appellant is, admittedly, a tenant of the suit premises which is being used as a godown admeasuring 9 ft. x 20 ft. Respondent No. 1 landlady who has let out the suit premises to the appellant applied for permission to terminate tenancy under clause 13 (3) (i) (ii) (vi) and (vii) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter called for short as "the Rent Control order, 1949"). The said proceeding was registered as a Revenue Case No. 698/a-71 (2) /85-86 in the year 1986 against the appellant. The rent was Rs. 100/- p. m. exclusive of electric and water charges. It was the case of landlady that when she purchased the premises from the erstwhile owner Anant Ramchandra chitre on 1-5-1979, at that time she was residing on monthly rent of Rs. 1257- in the rented premises of one Mr. Balkrishna. That premises were comprised of one room and in that, four members of respondent No. 1's family were residing. She, therefore, required the suit premises in occupation of appellant for her personal bona fide need for residence. She contended that she has to construct a house on the suit premises for the purpose of residence of her family. It was also contended by respondent No. I/original applicant that the appellant last paid rent in the month of November, 1984 and thereafter, he did not care to pay the rent. That the appellant was in arrears of rent for more than three months and was, therefore, a defaulter. She issued notice on 31-1-1985 to the appellant. Though the appellant replied her notice, he did not vacate the suit premises and therefore, she was constrained to file application before the Revenue Authority against the appellant as stated earlier.