SANTOSHRAO BARKUJI RAHATE Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the respondent No. 1, dated 25.2.2004, reversing the order passed by the Rent Controller refusing to grant permission to the respondent landlady under clause 13(3(ii) & (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses & Rent Control Order 1949.

(2.) Few facts giving rise to the present petition are stated thus- The respondent is the landlady. The petitioner was allowed to occupy the tenanted premises on the ground floor, of the property owned by the respondent. The respondent had filed an application before the Rent Controller, Nagpur for grant of permission to issue notice to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner under clause 13(3) (i) (ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order. Respondent pleaded that she required the suit premises for her bonafide occupation. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner had paid rent only upto 31.3.1981 and had failed to deposit the rent thereafter. In a civil suit filed by the respondent, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had deposited the amount of Rs. 5619 towards occupation charges. This amount covered the amount upto end of 1985 and the petitioner again failed to pay the rent inspite of a direction by the civil court. It was pleaded in the application that the petitioner was in arrears from April 1985 till the date of filing of the application in the first week of December, 1986.

(3.) The Rent Controller on an appreciation of the evidence on record rejected the application filed by the respondent land lady on all the three grounds. The Rent Controller observed that the petitioner was depositing the amount of rent in the court where the recovery suit was pending and there was nothing to show that the landlady had received the rent under protest. The Rent Controller held that the landlady did not require the premises for bonafide occupation. By the operative part of the order, however, the petitioner was directed to pay the arrears of rent to the respondent with simple interest @ 9% p.a., within a period of 3 months, failing which, according to the Rent Controller the respondent was entitled to terminate the tenancy of the tenant under clause 13(3)(i) of the Rent Control Order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the landlady, preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Nagpur. The Additional Collector, Nagpur by the impugned order dated 25.2.2004 reversed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller on the ground of habitual default. The findings as regards the bonafide need of the landlady was however, confirmed. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 25.2.2004 by filing the instant writ petition.