LAWS(BOM)-1985-7-14

MUKESH Vs. VINOD

Decided On July 26, 1985
MUKESH Appellant
V/S
VINOD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order). The petitioner claims that he purchased the suit block No. 8 in the Wholesale Cloth Market, Gandhibagh, Nagpur, in an auction sale held on 11-3-1977 for the recovery of the income-tax dues of the erstwhile owner of the said block. The said sale, according to him, was confirmed on 12-4-1977. The respondent-tenant was also informed about the purchase of the suit block by the Income-tax Department by its letter dt. 24-10-1977.

(2.) The respondent is the tenant occupying the suit block initially at the monthly rent of Rs.100/- and from 1-1-1978 at the monthly rent of Rs.125/-. After the petitioner purchased the suit block occupied by the respondent-tenant, the respondent-tenant started paying rent to the petitioner till 1-7-1979. However, from 1-7-1979 till 10-5-1980, the respondent-tenant did not pay any rent to the petitioner. It may at this stage be stated that the petitioner is carrying on the business of sale of medicines in block No. 118-A in the same building of the Wholesale Cloth Market, which block he is occupying on payment of rent as a tenant.

(3.) After the respondent-tenant fell in arrears the petitioner, on or about 5-11-1980, filed an application before the Rent Controller, under Cls.13(3)(i)(ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order, seeking permission to give a quit notice to the respondent-tenant. The respondent-tenant by his written statement denied the allegations in the application filed by the petitioner. The parties led evidence before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller by his order dt. 31-1-1983, granted permission to the petitioner under Cls.13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order. The respondent-tenant preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Nagpur, who, by his order dt. 21-10-1983, allowed the same. Accordingly the order of the Rent Controller granting permission to the petitioner under Cls.13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order stood set aside. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.