PURUSHOTTAM RAMLAL SHUKLA Vs. GAYATRIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the landlord, challenges the order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents -tenants under Clause 21 of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order) has been allowed. As a result of said order, the proceedings initiated by the landlord have been remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh inquiry with regard to grant of permission under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (v) of the Rent Control Order. The landlord has been held ineligible for grant of permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order.

(2.) The present litigation is long drawn and reference is being made to the relevant facts which are required to be considered while adjudicating the Writ Petition. The petitioner is the owner of premises that are situated at Dharampeth, Nagpur being Municipal Corporation House No. 194. The respondents are the tenants who have been let out two rooms admeasuring 22 ft. X 33 ft. for business purposes. There is also a frontage of 22 ft. On 18.01.1991 the petitioner had initiated proceedings under Rent Control Order by approaching Rent Controller under the provisions of Clause 13(3) (i), (ii) and (v) thereof. On 29.03.1993 the Rent Controller granted permission to issue quit notice to the respondents. The tenants filed appeal under Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order. Along with said appeal an application for condonation of delay was also filed. By order dated 28.05.2001 the application for condonation of delay came to be rejected. The review application filed by the respondents was also dismissed on 30.08.2004. Both the aforesaid orders were challenged in Writ Petition No. 5941 of 2004. This Court on 17.01.2005 dismissed the Writ Petition. Thereafter the respondents preferred Letters Parent Appeal No. 21 of 2005 which came to be allowed on 28.06.2005. After setting aside the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as by the learned Single Judge, the application for condonation of delay came to be allowed. This order in turn came to be challenged by the landlord before the Supreme Court of India. On 20.02.2006 the Supreme Court of India permitted the landlord to amend the proceedings for eviction and to seek permission to issue quit notice on the ground of bonafide need. The appellate authority was also permitted to record evidence and thereafter decide the appeal.

(3.) Pursuant to aforesaid liberty as granted, the petitioner amended the original application and sought eviction of the respondents on the ground of bonafide need. It was pleaded that the landlord had two sons who were on the verge of completing their education. It was stated that in part of the premises the landlord's wife was running a lodge and hence the elder son decided to start a general store in part of the premises. The younger son wanted to start restaurant -cum -mess in part of the premises. The respondents amended their written statement and opposed the claim of the landlord. It was denied that there was any bonafide need on the part of the landlord. It was further stated that a large portion of the premises was lying vacant and was not being used. Similarly, it was stated that the landlord did not have need of the entire premises. It was then stated that if the permission as prayed was granted, then hardship would be caused to the tenants.