WASUDEO MEGHRAJ SINGHANIYA Vs. SUBHASHCHANDRA GHAVERCHAND BAGAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/tenants being aggrieved by the order passed by the authority under the C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Rent Control Order' for the sake of brevity), have filed this writ petition challenging the permission having been granted to the landlord (respondent herein) to terminate the tenancy on two counts, firstly, on the ground that the tenants had secured alternate accommodation and, secondly, on the ground that the landlord required these premises for his bona fide personal occupation.

(2.) FOLLOWING factual backdrop will explain the controvercy involved: The premises are situated on Nasul Plot No.109, suit No.10-B, admeasuring 26' x 26' in the municipal area of Pandharkawada town. Originally, the house belonged to Ghevarchand Bagawat who had purchased it in auction. He gifted it away by way of registered gift deed dated 15.7.1983 to his son Subhashchandra, respondent herein, who was then a young man of 25 years. Subhashchandra therefore filed an application on these two grounds, namely, he required the house for his own residence and also for doing business as he had no other house of his own at Pardharkawada and also that the tenants owned and possessed one double-storied building, which is the big house with halls and shop therein, and that they also owned another shop and three godowns suitable for their business and were located in principal area and principal road of the town. It was also stated that those shops and buildings were suitable for their own business and, therefore, they had secured the alternate accommodation.

(3.) IN appeal, however, the appellate authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller. The appellate authority found that in a review application, by which a review was sought of an order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Yavatmal dated 31.12.1982, there was a clearcut reference to a judgment passed by the District Judge dated 129.1978, wherein the father of the applicant/landlord was held to be the owner of the suit property. The appellate authority, therefore held that in view of the judgment of the District Judge, it could not be held that Ghewarchand, i. e. , the father of the applicant/landlord, was not the owner. It, therefore, further held that Ghewarchand, i. e. , the father of the applicant/landlord, was not the owner. It therefore, further held that Ghewarchand being the exclusive owner of the suit property had all the rights in the world to make a gift of his property in favour of his son and, therefore, no fault could be found against the gift-deed. The appellate authority, therefore, gave an unequivocal finding that Subhashchandra, who was gifted the property by his father Ghewarchand was the landlord of the property. He then proceeded to discuss the evidence on the question of the tenants having secured alternate accommodation and found that they had one double-storied building and two godowns, which was clear from the municipal assessment lists for the years 1980-81 to 1983-84 and the business was being run only on the area 26' x 26', and considering the area of their own house, it was quite clear that the accommodation available to the tenants was more than sufficient. The appellate authority allowed the application on that count. INsofar as the personal need of the landlord was concerned, the appellate authority recorded a finding that the landlord Subhashchandra has no house or shop in the city of Pandharkawada and, therefore, if he insisted upon coming to his own house, there was nothing unnatural about it. IN that view of the matter, the appellate authority allowed the appeal. This order is challenged herein.