S V KEDARI AND COMPANY Vs. MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the parties including the added parties were heard by us at length on merits and hence the instant letters patent appeal can be conveniently disposed of at this stage only. Hence, Rule, Heard forthwith.

(2.) The proceedings in this letters patent appeal arise out to the orders passed under the provisions of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short "the Rent Control Order"). The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an application before the Rent Controller under Clauses 13(3)(i), (ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order seeking permission to give quit notice to the appellant No. 1, which was the tenant in the suit premises. The appellant No. 1 is a registered partnership firm. By its written statement the appellant No. 1 denied the allegation made by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in their application. After the written statement to add to the original application, Shri S. Narsingrao Kedari, as non-applicant No. 2 on the ground that it was necessary to sue the firm through one of the partners in view of the decision of this Court. The said application for amendment was allowed and S. Narsingrao Kedari, one of the partners of the firm, added as non-applicant No. 2 in the proceedings.

(3.) The parties led evidence. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence on record held that the respondents-landlords have not proved there case in regard to any of the ground raised by them. He, therefore, dismissed the said application. The respondents-landlord preferred an appeal and in the appeal as regards the permission sought under Clause 13(3)(ii) the learned Additional District Magistrate, Nagpur set aside the order of the learned have proved their case about the habitual default under Clause 13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control order. He accordingly granted permission to the landlords thereunder to determine the lease of the appellant. He, however, maintained the order of the learned Rent Controller, Nagpur, as regard the permission sought under Clauses 13(3)(i) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order. Feeling aggrieved the tenant preferred a writ petition in this Court, but the some was dismissed. Against the judgment of this Court in the writ petition, the appellants have preferred the instant letters patent appeal.