SHESHRAO S O RAGHOBA SURYAWANSHI AND MAROTRAO S O GANPATRAO AMRUTKAR AND SOMNATH S O LAXMANRAO MADESHWAR Vs. SONCHAND S O SOBHAGMALJI DARDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three sets of tenants occupying three different shop premises in a house, have appealed from the orders dismissing their writ petitions against the permission granted by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority, under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 ("the Rent Control Order for short).

(2.) The respondent Sonchand and his grand son Kishore, aged about 20 years, formed a joint Hindu family which owned a house comprising three shop-premises, two of which were of the size 6 x 8 1/2 and the third of the size 10 x 10. The respondent was in possession of a portion 6 x 61/2 out of that building which was situated in a business locality near Saroj Talkies at Yavatmal. Sonchand applied to the Rent Controller for permission to give notices determining the leases of the three sets of tenant, on the ground that he wanted the premises for his own occupation, i.e., for the purpose of opening a Stationery and General Stores in those portions. The Rent Controller rejected the contentions raised by the tenants and held that the respondents needed the house for the purpose of his bona fide occupation. The tenants appeals to the Appellate Authority were dismissed and so were the three writ petitions which they had filed against the orders of the Rent Control Authorities and that gave rise to these three Letters Patent Appeals.

(3.) The first challenge by the appellants was to the refusal by the learned Single Judge to apply the proviso to Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order which revived on account of the deletion of sub-clause (f) to Article 19(1) of the Constitution by the 44th Amendment which came into force on 30th April, 1979, on the ground that the amendment of the Constitution was a subsequent event which had not occurred until the decision by the appellate authority, which was rendered on 20th July, 1978. Secondly, it was contended that the authorities had not considered the question as to whether the need of the landlord would be met by the occupation of a portion of the house only and not granting permission in respect of such a portion only. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the respondent-landlord that the proviso could not have revived, in view of it having been struck down by this Court in (Vikram Madhoba Ghodkhande v. Medical Officer, Wardha) 1983 Mh.L.J. 190, as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The submission for the respondent further was that the Rent Control Authorities had applied their mind to the question which was required to be considered under Clause 13(3) & (8) of the Rent Control Order, and no interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction was called for.