ASHOK ARJUNRAO DHOBLE Vs. GEETABAI BHIMRAOJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Additional Collector, Yavatmal in an appeal, filed by the respondent tenant under Clause 21 of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949 reversing the findings recorded by the Rent Controller granting permission to the petitioner landlord to terminate the tenancy of the respondent under Clause 13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order.

(2.) The petitioner is the landlord. He had initiated the proceedings against the respondent under Clause 13(3)(ii), (vi), (vii) and (ix) of the Rent Control Order. It was the case of the petitioner that he required the suit premises for his bona fide occupation. It was pleaded by the petitioner that though the notice was issued to the respondent informing her about the purchase of the property by the petitioner in the year 1994, by both the original landlord and the petitioner also, according to the petitioner the respondent had failed to pay the rent to the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner chat the house was extremely old and dilapidated and it was necessary to terminate the tenancy of the respondent under Clause 13(3)(vi) also.

(3.) The respondent denied the claim of the petitioner and also denied that the landlord had purchased the premises for his occupation. The respondent pleaded that she was giving rent from the month of April 1994 till March 1995 to the petitioner, but the petitioner had refused to issue any receipt in regard to the same. She denied that she was a habitual defaulter. It was also denied that the house was an old and dilapidated one and required immediate repairs and hence it was necessary to grant permission under Clause 13(3)(vii) of the Rent Control Order. The respondent sought for the dismissal of the application.