Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Purushottam Ramlal Shukla, is the landlord of premises at Dharampeth, Nagpur, comprising two rooms admeasuring 22 ft. x 33 ft. let out to the respondents for business purposes. On 18.01.1991, the landlord initiated proceedings under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (Rent Control Order) seeking permission under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii), (v) and (vi) to issue a quit notice. On 29.03.1993, the Rent Controller granted permission. The tenants filed an appeal under Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order along with an application for condonation of delay. The delay condonation application was rejected on 28.05.2001, and a review was dismissed on 30.08.2004. The tenants challenged these orders in Writ Petition No. 5941 of 2004, which was disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits. The Additional Collector, by order dated 24.11.2006, allowed the appeal, holding the landlord ineligible for permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) as the landlord failed to prove that he was not occupying any other suitable accommodation. The Additional Collector remanded the matter for fresh inquiry under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (v). The landlord challenged this order in the present writ petition. The High Court examined the findings and held that the Additional Collector correctly found the landlord ineligible under Clause 13(3)(vi) because the landlord had other premises available. The court also found no error in the remand for fresh inquiry under the other clauses. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Permission to Issue Quit Notice - Clause 13(3)(vi) - Landlord's Bona Fide Requirement - The landlord sought permission under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii), (v) and (vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949. The Rent Controller granted permission under all clauses. On appeal, the Additional Collector held the landlord ineligible under Clause 13(3)(vi) as the landlord failed to prove that he was not occupying any other suitable accommodation. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the landlord had other premises available. (Paras 2-5) B) Rent Control - Appeal - Clause 21 - Condonation of Delay - The tenants filed an appeal under Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order with a delay condonation application. The delay was condoned by the Additional Collector. The High Court held that the condonation of delay was within the appellate authority's discretion and not interfered with. (Paras 2-3) C) Rent Control - Remand - Fresh Inquiry - The Additional Collector remanded the matter for fresh inquiry under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (v). The High Court found no error in this direction as the Rent Controller had not properly considered these clauses. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Collector erred in allowing the appeal and remanding the matter for fresh inquiry under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (v) while holding the landlord ineligible under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Additional Collector dated 24.11.2006. The court found no error in the finding that the landlord was ineligible for permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) and that the remand for fresh inquiry under the other clauses was justified.
Law Points
- Clause 13(3)(vi) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order
- 1949 requires landlord to prove that premises are required for his own bona fide use and that he is not occupying any other suitable accommodation
- Clause 21 appeal lies against order of Rent Controller
- Condonation of delay in filing appeal is discretionary
