JAGDISHPRASAD KESARMAL SABU Vs. DHARAMDAS THARUMAL HASNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 2 herein originally owned a house situated in the City of Amravati. This house consists of three storeys. There are a few shops on the ground floor which had been let out to certain persons. The first floor had been let out to the petitioner at a monthly rental of Rs. 75/-and he is in occupation of that portion of the house as a tenant. Respondent No. 2 made an application to the Rent Controller under the provisions of Clause 13 (3) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order') against the three tenants occupying the ground floor and the petitioner for permission to serve quit notices on them. In so far as the petitioner was concerned, respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from 6th June, 1969 to 5th Nov., 1969 to the tune of Rs. 375/-, that he was habitual defaulter, that he (respondent No. 2) wanted the portion of the house in the occupation of the petitioner for his personal occupation and that the house required essential repairs which could not be carried out without the tenant vacating it. The four applications which respondent No. 2 had made against his tenants including the petitioner were heard together and disposed of by the Rent Controller by a common order on 4th Dec. 1970. The Rent Controller negatived the contention of respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter. However, he upheld his contentions that respondent No. 2 required the portion in possession of the petitioner for his personal occupation and that the said portion also required essential repairs. In this view of the matter the Rent Controller granted permission to respondent No. 2 under Clause 13 (3) (vi) and (vii) of the Order. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order before the Resident Deputy Collector at Amravati, on 23rd Jan. 1971. In the meanwhile it appears that respondent No. 2 had served the notice to quit in pursuance of the permission he had obtained from the Rent Controller, on 6th Jan. 1971. When the appeal was pending before the Resident Deputy Collector, respondent No. 2 transferred a portion of the house including the portion in possession of the petitioner to respondent No. 1 under a registered conveyance dated 28th Sept. 1971. Respondent No. 1, by his application dated 15th March 1972, moved the Resident Deputy Collector for permission to appear in the said appeal and contest it. In this application respondent No. 1 had averred that he had purchased the house from respondent No. 2 under registered sale-deed dated 28th Sept. 1971 and had thus become landlord of the house in place of respondent No. 2. No order seems to have been passed by the Resident Deputy Collector on his application. However, it appears from the record of the appeal that the Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 was allowed to argue, the appeal on his behalf. The Resident Dy. Collector by his order dated 27th Nov. 1973, confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller to the effect that respondent No. 2 needed the house in question bona fide for his personal occupation and that the house was in dilapidated condition and required to be repaired after it was vacated by the tenant. Having thus agreed with the findings of the .Rent Controller, the Resident Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal of the peti tioner. The petitioner has, therefore, came up to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for getting the appellate order of the Resident Deputy Collector quashed.

(2.) Mr. P. Y. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No. 1 having purchased the house from respondent No. 2 during the pendency of the appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector, the permission granted by the authorities below under Clause 13 (3) (vi) would not inure for the benefit of respondent No. 1. He submitted that the Rent Controller had granted permission to respondent No. 2 on this ground after having taken into consideration his needs and if respondent No. 2 had transferred the house to respondent No. 1, it would be evident that respondent No. 2 did not heed the house for himself and hence the ground on which the permission was granted by the Rent Controller having become nonexistent, the Resident Deputy Collector ought to have revoked this permission in view of this development having been brought to his notice by respondent No. 1 himself, by his application dated 15th March 1972. Mr. Deshpande contended that perusal of the order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector would show that he has not at all considered this aspect of the case which was material.

(3.) With regard to the permission granted under Clause 13 (3) (vii) of the Order Mr. Deshpande contended that the Resident Deputy Collector had not properly assessed the evidence on record and had come to an erroneous finding that the house needed the repairs. He submitted that before the Rent Controller the petitioner and respondent No. 1 both had adduced evidence of their own experts and the Rent Controller had wrongly chosen to rely on the evidence of the expert examined by respondent No. 2 simply because the Municipal Council had issued a notice to respondent No. 2 for demolition of the house. Mr. Deshpande contended that respondent No. 2 had not adduced any evidence to show that the Municipality had in fact issued such a notice. Hence Mr. Deshpande submitted, that the Resident Deputy Collector ought to have held on the basis of the evidence adduced by the petitioner that the house was in good condition and did not require any repairs. Mr. P. Y. Deshpande, therefore, urged that the orders passed by the two authorities below require to be quashed.