MAHAL MASJID TRUST Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a registered public trust and petitioner No. 2 is its Secretary. Respondent No. 2 Abdul Wahab was a tenant in occupation of block No. 8 in building bearing Municipal House No. 136/0+8, situated at Nagarkhana road, Mahal, Nagpur. Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Clause 13 (7) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (For short 'Rent Control Order') for restoration of the said shop to him. According to respondent No. 2, he was occupying the said shop at monthly rent of Rs. 350/- per month. The petitioners/landlords requested him to vacate shop No. 8 to allow them to store construction materials as first floor of the building was going to be constructed soon. Assurance was given to restore the possession of the said shop to him after completion of construction. On the basis of assurance, respondent No. 2 claims to have vacated the said shop in favour of the landlords. The petitioners demolished certain portion of the building and made reconstruction but without making any changes in block Nos. 7 and 8. Block No. 7 was allotted to one Mr. Mirza Hakim Baig and block No. 8 was allotted to one Firoz Tailors. In fact, as per assurance given to respondent No. 2, possession of said block No. 8 should have been restored to him on completion of construction work. With these contentions, he claimed restoration of possession.

(2.) The petitioners/landlords contested said application by filing written statement and denied the claim of respondent No. 2. However, when the matter was fixed for evidence, respondent No. 2 alone filed affidavit in support of his claim. On behalf of the landlords, no evidence was led nor respondent No. 2 was cross-examined. Therefore, the Rent Controller passed order dated 20.06.1997 directing the landlords to give possession of block No. 8 to respondent No. 2-tenant as per earlier terms and conditions of the tenants. That order was challenged by the present petitioners in appeal before the Additional Collector. However, the learned Additional Collector dismissed the appeal by impugned order dated 30.09.2000. Hence, this petition is filed by the landlords.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.