MAHAVIR TEA COMPANY Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the concurrent orders passed by the authorities under C. P. and Berar Letting of Premises And Rent control Order, 1949, granting permission to present respondent No. 2 (through legal heirs) to terminate their tenancy under Clause 13 (3) (iv) , (v) and (vi) of said order. Clause 13 (3) (iv) deals with change of user, while clause 13 (3) (vi) permits landlord to terminate the tenancy on account of his bona fide need. Permission under clause 13 (3) (v) already stands rejected by both authorities to respondent and hence, said issue is not considered in this petition.

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed proceedings under Clauses 13 (3) (iv) , (v) and (vi) of Rent Control Order on 16-6-1988 against the present petitioners and stated that he is occupying about 550 sq. feet of house at mezzanine floor in the suit structure and his family consists of 12 members. He contended that said area is very small and therefore he needed the area on first floor i. e. about 950 sq. feet given on rent to present petitioners for his own occupation. He further stated that the premises were let out to petitioners for using the same only for shop-cum-business purposes and in violation of this, the tenants have been using the premises for residence and as such there is violation of clause 13 (3) (iv). The present petitioners filed their written statement and they contended that as per agreement the premises can be used for residential purposes also and therefore permission under clause 13 (3) (iv) cannot be granted. In relation to bona fide need they stated that the need pleaded was false. The number of family members was denied, the area in possession of landlord was also denied and it was stated that the landlord inducted the tenants in the premises even during pendency of proceedings and therefore permission under clause 13 (3) (vi) cannot be granted. It appears that thereafter the respondent-landlord amended his application to add paragraphs 4-A and 4-B in his application. In paragraph No. 4-A he pointed out the total area of plot and the portion thereof which has fallen to his share and also the details about the tenant occupying the shop block on the ground floor. He also stated that on ground floor there is a small godown and office below the staircase which are being used by son of landlord. The area in possession of present petitioners was stated to be 920 sq. feet on the first floor and it was stated that there was one more tenant on that floor by name M/s Paras Bearing company and area in their possession was only 90 sq. feet. It was stated that said area was unsuitable and hence, no proceedings were filed against that tenant. It was further stated that on second floor there are two rooms having wooden frame and Kavelu i. e. country tiles ceiling and those rooms were given on rent to M/s modi Trading Company. After earlier tenant vacated, the said rooms were offered to present petitioners and they were requested to vacate first floor as it is suitable and adjacent to mezzanine floor. This offer was made through notice dated 22-11-1983 sent through Advocate and as the petitioners did not reply the said notice, ultimately the premises on second floor were let out to Modi Trading company. This story was also denied by present petitioners. They contended that the tenant on first floor namely M/s Paras Bearing Company vacated the premises and they were let out thereafter to one M/s Zaveri Sales Corporation on higher rent.

(3.) It is in this background, parties led evidence before the Rent Controller. The respondent No. 2-landlord examined himself and his son Mohan Upadhya, while the present petitioners examined its Manager by name Sushil Kumar hansraj Bothara, one architect by name Shri Nandkumar Asarkar and one employee of Nagpur Improvement Trust in order to demonstrate the total area in possession of the respondent-landlord. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 30-10-1998 granted permission under clause 13 (3) (iv) and (vi) to the respondent-landlord. The petitioners thereafter filed appeal under clause 21 of rent Control Order, 1949 and by order dated 30-4-2001 the Additional Collector, nagpur was pleased to dismiss said appeal.