UTTAMRAO MAROTIRAM SURYAWANSHI Vs. RESIDENT DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Tathod, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 is deleted.

(2.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant challenges the order dated 9.5.1991 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector with Rent Control Appellate Powers, Akola, allowing the review preferred by respondent No. 4 landlady and granting permission to landlady to terminate his tenancy under Clause 13(3)(ii) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order). The Rent Controller granted permission under Clauses 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the Rent Control Order. The Appellate Authority reversed the order insofar as permission under Clause 13(3)(i) is concerned the Reviewing Authority has again restored the order the Rent Controller. The petitioner-tenant states that insofar as the permission under Clause 13(3)(i) is concerned, said order is already complied with and said issue does not fall for consideration in this writ petition.

(3.) Shri Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner-tenant has made two grievances in this writ petition. The first is that the pendency of earlier two Civil Suits between the respondent/landlady and the petitioner-tenant and its effect has not been appropriately evaluated. He further contends that the reviewing authority has erred in observing that the money order coupons were not filed on record. It is his contention that the appellate judgement which is in favour of the petitioner tenant is well reasoned one and there is no scope for any review in the matter.