Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the order of the Appellate Authority (Collector, Wardha) dated 28.06.2004, which reversed the Rent Controller's dismissal of the landlord's application seeking leave to terminate the tenancy under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The landlord had filed Rent Control Case No. 712/2/1997 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Wardha, claiming that he bonafidely required the premises for his business of sugarcane juice and to provide employment to his two unemployed sons. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on 02.12.2000, but the Appellate Authority allowed the landlord's appeal and granted permission. The tenant argued that the Appellate Authority did not consider the need as pleaded and that extension of business cannot be a bonafide need. The landlord contended that there was a plea of need and that the tenant admitted the need in cross-examination. The High Court, after examining the application, written statement, and evidence, held that the landlord's application contained a plea of need for business, and the evidence showed that the landlord wanted to expand his business for his sons. The Court found that the Appellate Authority correctly appreciated the evidence and granted permission. The petition was dismissed, and the Appellate Authority's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Need - Clause 13(3)(vi) C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 - Landlord's need for premises to expand his sugarcane juice business for his sons' employment - Held that the need is bonafide and the Appellate Authority correctly granted permission (Paras 1-5).
B) Rent Control - Plea and Evidence - Clause 13(3)(vi) C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 - Tenant's contention that there was no specific plea of need - Held that the landlord's application contained a plea of need for business, and evidence can be looked into to ascertain the nature of need (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in granting permission to the landlord to terminate the tenancy under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, based on the landlord's bonafide need for the premises for his business expansion.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Appellate Authority's order dated 28.06.2004 granting permission to the landlord to terminate the tenancy under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949.
Law Points
- Bonafide need
- Clause 13(3)(vi)
- C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order
- 1949
- Extension of business
- Plea and evidence
- Appellate Authority's jurisdiction
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 358
Writ Petition No. 3003 of 2005
Shri H.D. Dangre for Petitioner, Shri J.R. Kidilay for Respondent No.1, Shri Kale for Respondent Nos.2 & 3
Chandrakant s/o Ramsunder Dube
Bhaskar s/o Ramchandrarao Bakde, The Hon’ble Sub Divisional Officer and Rent Controller, Wardha, The Hon’ble Collector / Additional Collector and Rent Control Appellate Authority, Wardha
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Appellate Authority granting permission to the landlord to terminate the tenancy.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner/tenant sought to quash the Appellate Authority's order dated 28.06.2004 which granted permission to the landlord to terminate the tenancy.
Filing Reason
The tenant challenged the Appellate Authority's order on the ground that the landlord's need was not bonafide and that there was no proper plea.
Previous Decisions
The Rent Controller (Sub Divisional Officer, Wardha) dismissed the landlord's application for leave to terminate tenancy on 02.12.2000. The Appellate Authority (Collector, Wardha) allowed the landlord's appeal on 28.06.2004.
Issues
Whether the Appellate Authority erred in granting permission to terminate tenancy under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949.
Whether the landlord's need for the premises for extension of business constitutes a bonafide need under Clause 13(3)(vi).
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner/tenant: The Appellate Authority did not consider the need as pleaded; evidence in support of need could not be looked into without a specific plea; extension of business cannot be a bonafide need under Clause 13(3)(vi). Relied on Maqboolunnisa v. Mohd. Saleha Quaraishi.
Respondent/landlord: There was a plea of need for business; the tenant admitted the need in cross-examination; the Appellate Authority correctly appreciated the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The landlord's need for premises to expand his existing business for the benefit of his sons constitutes a bonafide need under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The Appellate Authority, being the final fact-finding body, correctly appreciated the evidence and its findings should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner / tenant has challenged the reversing order delivered by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Collector, Wardha on 28.06.2004 in Rent Control Appeal No.1/712/200304.
Clause 13[3][vi] enables the landlord to terminate the tenancy of tenant, if he proves that, the premises are bonafidely required by him.
In the alternative he contends that, extension of business for which permission has been granted by the Appellate Authority, cannot be construed as bonafide need, under Clause 13[3][vi].
Procedural History
The landlord filed an application for leave to terminate tenancy under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, which was registered as Rent Control Case No. 712/2/1997. The Rent Controller (Sub Divisional Officer, Wardha) dismissed the application on 02.12.2000. The landlord appealed under Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order, and the Appellate Authority (Collector, Wardha) allowed the appeal on 28.06.2004, granting permission. The tenant then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949: Clause 13(3)(vi), Clause 21
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
