SMT. DWARKADEVI Vs. NARSINGHDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition preferred by the landlord challenging the order of the learned Appellate Dy. Collector, Nagpur, passed in review proceedings under the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, (for short the Rent Control Order). The petitioner filed an application under clauses 13(3)(i), (ii) and (vi) or the Rent Control Order seeking permission to give quite notice to the respondent-tenant, who has a lease of the shop block in the building belonging to the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller rejected the application of the petitioner under clauses 13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order. As regards clause 13(3)(i) the learned Rent Controller stipulated time for payment of arrears of rent, failing which permission thereunder was deemed to be granted. The respondent has, however, paid the arrears of rent as ordered by the learned Rent Controller and, therefore, no question of permission under clause 13(3)(i) survived for consideration.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the learned Rent Controller dismissing her application under clauses 13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order. In appeal the learned Appellate Dy. Collector, maintained the order of the learned Rent Controller under clause 13(3)(ii) but reversed his order under clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. The learned Appellate Court held that the petitioner has proved her bonafide need under clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. He therefore, granted her permission thereunder. The respondent tenant preferred a review against the aforesaid order in appeal passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, who exercised the appellate power under Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order. The successor of the learned Additional District Magistrate (for short the ADM) who passed the original order in appeal, allowed the review holding that the petitioner is not entitled to permission under clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. Thus, the application of the 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. Thus, the application of the petitioner under all the clauses of 13(3) of the Rent Control Order came to be dismissed in toto. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.

(3.) TO appreciate the finding of the learned Appellate Dy. Collector in review, it is necessary to see that the only allegations made in para 3 of the application under clause 13(3)(iv) of the Rent Control Order by the petitioner are that the petitioner wants to start a business in these premises, that the petitioner is not having any business of her own in her name, and that the suit premises are convenient and suitable for starting the business as they are in business locality. In support of her case, the petitioner has not herself entered the witness box but her son has given evidence in the instant case. In his examination-in-chief, he has only stated that the petitioner wants to start business in her own name, that she is income tax prayer and that there are no vacant premises in which she can do the business. In his examination-in-chief, he does not give the nature of the business which the petitioner wants to start. However, in cross-examination, he states that the petitioner wants to start business of a general merchant. In his cross-examination he also states that the age of the petitioner is 50 years. On the other hand, the respondent in his evidence states that it is not correct that the petitioner wants to start any business. Further in his cross-examination he states that there is a vacant space belonging to the petitioner in Raka Bhawan on the first floor.