RASIK AUTO STORES Vs. NAVIN V. HANTODKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners. His only contention was that in the light of Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949, because the landlord is having other premises of his own in the adjoining part of the very suit premises, the suit for possession of the suit premises was liable to fail. The said provision reads as under :

(2.) ACCEPTING the said contention, that Court remanded the proceedings for getting a finding on this aspect. In the facts of the present case, there is a clear finding recorded by the Rent Controller as well as by the appellate Court that 300 sq. ft. of the accommodation available with the respondent -landlord in the building is insufficient for two doctors as the landlord and his wife both are practising doctors.