NANAKLAL HAJARILAL Vs. BANK OF NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the Petitioners -tenants against the order dated 30th November, 1957 passed by Shri R.P. Mishra, Additional Collector, Durg in revenue appeal No. 67 -7112 of 1957 -58 arising out of the order dated 12 -9 -1957 passed by Shri Saligram Dubey, Rent Controller, Durg in Revenue Case No. 33 -71/2 of 1956 -57.

(2.) THE first Respondent, the Bank of Nagpur purchased the houses belonging to the Petitioners by sale -deed dated 24 -12 -1955, for a consideration of Rs. 40,000. In accordance with the sale -deed, the first Respondent was placed in possession of the premises, except a portion regarding which, an agreement of the game date was executed by the Petitioners in favour of the Bank. By the said agreement, the Petitioners undertook to vacate some portion of the premises, in which their effects had been kept, by the end of the month namely December, 1955. As regards the other house located in ward No. 14, known as Appapura, the Petitioners agreed to vacate the same by Diwali of the year 1956. The agreement also recited that the Bank had permitted the Petitioners to occupy a portion of the house in ward No. 14 on the specific condition, that it would be vacated by the Diwali of the next year or in case the Bank sold the house in the meantime, the Petitioners would vacate it at the time of the sale.

(3.) ON behalf of the landlord, two witnesses namely, (A. W. 1) Ramchandra, agent of the Durg Branch of the Bank was examined. Another witness namely (A. W. 2) Suganchand, a business man, who scribed (EX. A. 1) the sale deed, was also examined. On behalf of the tenants the second Petitioner Badrinarayan was examined. For the present, it is not necessary for me to examine the oral evidence of the parties, but I shall deal with the findings of the Rent Control authorities with regard to their legality. The learned Rent Controller held that as the sub -tenancy of Gyarsilal existed prior to the execution of the sale deed, the Petitioners could not be said to have sub -leased in contravention of Clause 13(3)(iii) of the Rent Control Order. The another sub -tenant was alleged to be one Kewal Ramani. As regards this alleged sub -tenant, the Rent Controller held that the landlord failed to prove that the tenants ever accepted any rent from Kewal Ramani. Therefore, the Rent Controller negatived the contention of the Bank regarding the question of sub -lease. As regards the ground of arrears for more than 3 months, the Rent Controller directed that all arrears of rent be cleared of by November, 1957. As regards the question of bona fide need of the residence of the Bank employees, the Rent Controller held that the Bank was in possession of other buildings, which could be given to the said employees. The Rent Controller also observed that a portion of the building had been let out to other persons. Therefore, the Rent Controller rejected the landlord's application for grant of permission to determine the tenancy.