BHAIRULAL BALMUKUND VERMA Vs. POONAMCHAND KASTURCHAND SANCHETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the Order dated 31-3-1989 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Buldana, where by he set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller on 30-3-1988.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the present petitioner Bhairulal Balmukund Verma (for short the landlord) made an application under Clause 13 (3) (ii), (iii) and (vi) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order) against respondent No. 1 Poonamchand (for short the tenant) and Mangilal Kisanlal Khatti (for short the alleged sub-tenant ). It was inter-alia averred in the application by the landlord that he was the owner of the property situated on Plot No. 6, Sheet No. 19, Station Road, Malkapur, and he had let out two shops in the said property, the details of which have been given in the application, to the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 81/- with effect from 24-1-1973. According to the landlord, the tenant was a habitual defaulter and he has sub-let some portion of the premises to the alleged sub-tenant on the monthly rent of Rs. 75/- and that the premises in question were required by the landlord for his two sons.

(3.) THE tenant filed the written statement and denied the allegations made in the application. It was inter-alia submitted by the tenant that he was a monthly tenant of the premises in question and he has been paying rent regularly and, therefore, it was wrong to say that he was a habitual defaulter. The tenant denied that he has inducted the alleged sub-tenant or that he was receiving rent of Rs. 75/- from him. The tenant also denied the need set out by the landlord. In his specific pleas, the tenant set up the case that he was in possession of the shops in question since 1953 and not from 24-1-1973 as alleged by the landlord. The tenant also averred that the tailoring machine used by the alleged sub-tenant was owned by him and the said work was complimentary to the cloth business, which the tenant has been carrying on his disputed premises. The tenant also averred that the alleged sub-tenant is using the said machine since 1953 and he has no separate business. According to the tenant, he gets the stitching job work done through the alleged sub-tenant. The alleged sub-tenant also contested the claim of the landlord and denied the averments made in the application. In the written statement it was averred by him that he was not the sub-tenant and was not paying any rent to the tenant. According to him, the sewing machine belonged to the tenant and it was in existence since 1953 and it was complimentary to cloth business of the tenant and he was stitching the clothes for the tenant. Certain amendments were carried out in the pleadings by the parties.