MADHAO RAMCHANDRA TARAR Vs. MADHAO PUNDLIK MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur. on 8.12.2000 reversing the order passed by the Rent Controller on 28.8.1997 granting permission to the petitionerslandlords to terminate the tenancy of the respondent tenant under clause 13(3)(ii) & (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order [hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order]. Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus.

(2.) The petitioners are the sons of the original applicantRamchandra Tarar who had filed an application under clause 13(3)(ii) & (vi) of the Rent Control Order, 1949 before the Rent Controller, Nagpur seeking permission to terminate the tenancy of the respondent. It was stated by Ramchandra the father of the petitioners in the application that the respondent was a habitual defaulter and was not paying the monthly rent regularly. Schedule showing the default was also annexed to the application. It was pleaded by the original landlord that the tenanted premises admeasuring approximately 575 sq. ft. was required by his doctor son for an orthopedic hospital. At the time of filing of the application, the son of the respondent [present petitioner no. 1] was having his clinic on the first floor of the house. Tenanted premises was on the ground floor. The father of the petitioners pleaded that the tenanted premises were required by the petitioner no. 1 for having minor operation theater, a waiting room for the patients, consultation room, and the physiotherapy room. It was pleaded that the need of the landlord was bonafide and the landlord was entitled to permission under clause 13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order.

(3.) The respondent tenant filed written statement and denied the claim of the landlord. It was denied that the tenant was a habitual defaulter. The bonafide need of the landlord was also denied. It was pleaded by the respondent that the original landlord had built a new and spacious bungalow in West Nagpur and there was ample accommodation with the landlord to have an orthopedic clinic for his son. It was lastly stated in the written statement that the rent was not accepted by the landlord on many occasions and therefore, there was some interval in making payment of the rent. In that circumstances, according to the tenant, the tenant could not have been branded as a habitual defaulter.