NATWARLAL MOHANLAL LOTIA Vs. KAMALKISHOR RAMNIWASJI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment passed by the Additional Collector, Akola dated 25.7.2008 reversing the order passed by the Rent Controller on 23.8.2007 refusing to grant permission to the respondent - landlord to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner under Clauses 13(3)(v)(vi) and (vii) of the CP. & Berar Letting of Houses & Rent Control Order [hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order].

(2.) The respondent is the landlord and had moved an application before the Rent Con- uoller for permission to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner/tenant under Clause 13(3)(v), (vi) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order. According to the landlord the tenanted premises came to his share in a partition effected in the family. It was the case of the landlord that the premises were more than 50 years old and hence permission was required under Clause 13(3) (vii) of the Rent Control Order. Landlord also sought permission under Clauses 13(3)(v) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order on the ground that the tenant had secured alternate premises and did not reasonably require the premises for his occupation. Landlord pleaded that he required the tenanted premises for his bona fide occupation and hence permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order may be granted.

(3.) The petitioner/tenant resisted the claim of the landlord. The partition of the properties owned by the joint family of the respondent was denied. It was pleaded that there was ample accommodation available with the landlord and the need of the landlord was not bona fide. It was also pleaded by the tenant that he did not have any alternate premises in his accommodation and the claim of the landlord for permission under Clause 13(3)(v) of the Rent Controller Order was not genuine. The petitioner denied that he had purchased a plot in the name of his wife on 31.4.1980 and he had orally promised the landlord that he would vacate the premises after constructing the house on the said plot. The petitioner sought for dismissal of the application.