BHAGWANDAS BHAWARILAL DAGADIYA Vs. ABDUL SAMAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant Bhagwandas Bhawarilal Dagadi /a has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21-2-1989 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, A kola confirming the order dated 20-7-1987 passed by the Resident Deputy Controller, Washim.

(2.) Mohammad Nizam (since deceased and now representated by the present respondent Nos. 1 to 9) (for short "the landlords") filed an application against the petitioner Bhagwandas Bhawarilal Dagadiya (for short "the tenant") seeking permission of the Rent Controller, Washim under clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and(vi)of the C. P. and Berar of Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order") to determine the tenancy of the tenant. The application was made by the landlords on 15-9-1980 and it was averred in the said application that the disputed premises, details of which were given in para 1 of the application comprising of two Tasmas having two doors measuring 23'-6" in breadth East-West and 13 length North-South along with Ota. The tenant was let out the premises for 11 months or 1-1-1977 on monthly rent of Rs. 50.00 and the rent 'was payable on or before 5th of each English calendar month. According to the landlords, the tenant did not pay the rent on time for the months of June, July and Aug. 1980 and thus he was defaulter under clause 13(3)(i) and habitual defaulter under clause 13(3)(ii) The landlords averred that the premises in question are required for their bona fide occupation since they have a large family and all of them are living in a small house adjacent to the disputed premises and the present accommodation was insufficient, it was also averred that the tenant has an alternative accommodation and does not reasonably need the house in question. Along with the application the landlords also filed the schedule of payment of rent for the period from 1-1-1977 to 1-5-1980.

(3.) The written statement was filed by the tenant contesting the claim of the landlord and the allegations made in the application were denied. The tenant did not disputed that the premises were taken on rent for monthly rent of Rs. 50.00 and the rent note was executed. The tenant submitted that the rent for the months of June, July and Aug., 1980 was sent by money order and therefore he was not the defaulter or habitual defaulter. The tenant also denied that the premises are required bona fide by the landlords or that the accommodation available to the landlords was insufficient. The tenant also denied that he has got any alternative accommodation and did not need the disputed premises. The tenant submitted that the disputed premises were taken by him for godown purpose and he is using the same for the said purpose.