RUKHMINIBAI AMARSINGH THAKUR Vs. BHAIYAJI RAWJI BAPU WANKHEDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -tenants are challenging the orders of the authorities under the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order) granting permission to the respondent -landlord for terminating the tenancy of the petitioners on the ground that the landlord needs the house for his bona fide occupation.

(2.) THE house bearing Corporation No. 60, situate at Subhash Road, Nagpur, is owned by the respondent and it is in possession of the petitioners. The respondent filed an application under Clause 13 of the Rent Control Order seeking permission to terminate the petitioner's tenancy. That application was numbered as Rev. Case No. 531/A -71 (2) of 1969 -70. The grievance of the respondent was that the petitioners had fallen in arrears of rent for more than three months and that they were also habitually in arrears of rent. On these grounds permission can be obtained under Clause 13 (3) (i) and (ii). The respondent has also alleged that under Sub -clause (vi) he is entitled to have the permission as the house was needed by him bona fide for his occupa -tion. The Rent Controller, by his order dated 27 -10 -1970 accepted the case of the respondent and passed an appropriate order in favour of the respondent. The petitioners took this matter in appeal to the Additional District Magistrate, Nagpur. That appeal number is 185/A -71 (2)/ 70 -71. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that the grounds mentioned in Clauses 13 (3) (i) and (ii) are not available to the respondent. As far as the ground under Clause 13 (3) (vi) is concerned, he felt that the matter should be enquire ed into in more details in order to decide as to whether the provisions of Clause 13 (3) (viii) can be applied. The appellate authority, therefore, sent the case back to the Rent Controller. The order in somewhat clumsy, It reads as follows; 'I, therefore, set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller under Clause 13 (3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order and remand the case to the Rent Controller, Nagpur for further enquiry under Clause 13 (8) of the Rent Control Order and then to report the case to me. Both the parties be allowed to adduce evidence for the purposes of the Clause 13 (3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order and particularly Clause 13 (8) of the Rent Control Order.....In the result, the appeal partly succeeds in respect of permission under Clause 13 (3) (ii) and stands allowed. As regards permission under Clause 13 (3) (vi), the case stands remanded to the Rent Controller, Nagpur. .........'

(3.) MR . Oke for the petitioners submitted that the procedure followed by the Rent Controller after the matter was sent back to him was not correct. His grievance is that it was necessary for the Rent Controller to decide the matter himself as the case was remanded by the appellate authority. I do not think that all this was necessary. As a matterof fact, the appellate authority has directed the Rent Controller to submit his report after recording the evidence that may be led by the parties. It is true that the appellate authority has made a statement in the judgment that the orders passed by the Rent Controller are set aside and the case is remanded to him. These observations, however, will be controlled by the subsequent direction that the Rent Controller was not to decide the case himself but was to submit his report to the appellate authority. There would not have been any necessity of such a report if the appellate authority wanted that the Rent Controller should himself decide the case again. I would, therefore, think that there was no impropriety or illegality in the procedure that has been followed by the Rent Controller in submitting the report to the appellate authority as per the judgment in appeal.