OMPRAKASH Vs. HINDU CHILD WELFARE ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Additional Collector, Amravati in Revenue Appeal No.56/71(2)/93-94 of Amravati. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are as under :

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that permission has been granted by the Appellate Authority under clauses 13(3)(v)(vi) & (vii) without there being any evidence placed on record by the respondent-Land lord. It is submitted that the case of the respondent-Landlord was that it needs the premises for its own occupation. However, there is no evidence on record to show that it has the resources to develop the property. However, there is no evidence placed on record to show as to what is the present activity carried out in the premises, how much area is required and how much more area is required. The case of the Landlord was that the petitioner has acquired alternate accommodation. But there is no documentary evidence placed on record to show the same. Same is the case in relation to the case of the Land Lord that the house is in dilapidated condition and therefore, it cannot be repaired unless the tenant vacates the same. There is no evidence placed on record by the Land lord. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that there is no oral evidence lead by the Trust in support of its case. The learned counsel also submitted that the matter should be remanded back to the Authorities below so that the Land lord can lead documentary evidence on record, as also oral evidence.

(3.) In the light of the afore-mentioned rival submissions, record of the case is perused. It becomes clear that the Rent Controller had considered the matter in detail. The Rent Controller had found that there is absolutely no material placed on record except the oral statement made by the witness for the Landlord that the tenant acquired alternate accommodation. The Rent Controller also found that there is no documentary evidence led so as to show as to what is the present activity carried on by the Land lord. It was the case of the Land lord that they are running an Orphanage. But the Rent Controller observed that no permission has been obtained from the Authorities for running Orphanage there. In short, the Rent Controller had considered the matter in detail and had rejected the application because there was no documentary evidence placed on record to establish any of the grounds on which permission was sought by the Land Lord.