1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1621/2011 RADHIKASHARAN B. GUPTA ..VS.. ASHOK V. DAWDA AND OTHERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.M. Ahirrao, advocate for petitioner Shri A.M. Ghare, advocate for respondents CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : APRIL 11, 2011. Heard Shri Ahirrao, for the petitioner and Shri Ghare for the respondents. Both the authorities have concurrently held that the respondents were entitled to issue quit notice to the petitioner under clause 13(3)(ii)(iv)v) and (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that both the authorities have on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record observed that the respondents were entitled to grant of permission on all the four counts. The authorities found that though the tenancy was monthly, the petitioner did not pay the rent to the respondents regularly, every month. The authorities relied on the oral evidence of the landlord which disclosed that the tenant did not pay the rent regularly. The rent was paid after a period of 2-3 months every time and after the issuance of the notice dated 12.6.1993 the rent for a period of 5-6 months was paid. The 2 submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the landlord did not protest against the non payment of rent every month and in such circumstances, the respondents were not entitled for grant of permission under clause 13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control Order, is liable to be rejected, for the reason that a notice was duly served on the petitioner on 12.6.1993 and the rent was paid by the petitioner only after the protest was registered by the landlord. The judgment reported in 1995(2)Mh.L.J. Page 241 and 1989 Mh.L.J. Page 207, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In any case, it was not proved that the rent was payable as and when the tenant paid the same to the landlord and the tenancy was not monthly. The authorities were also justified in holding on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record that the landlord had leased the premises to the petitioner for residential purposes in the year 1981 and the petitioner started using it for commercial purpose since the year 1984. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the evidence of the power of attorney holder in regard to the change of user could not have been accepted by the authorities, as he could not have had the knowledge about the nature of tenancy, is liable to be rejected for the reason that the power of attorney holder is firstly the grandson of the landlord and secondly there is no suggestion put to the power of attorney holder of the landlord that he did not have any knowledge about the matter in question. Merely because the notice was issued in the year 1993 in this regard, it cannot be said that the landlord had not leased out the suit premises to the petitioner only for residential purposes. 3 The authorities also rightly observed that the landlords were entitled to permission under clause 13(3)(v) of the Rent Control Order as the petitioner was an owner of a shop block in Sitabuldi which was used by his son for business purposes. It was also admitted by the petitioner in his cross-examination that above the shop, residential premises belonging to the petitioner were situated and his brother was occupying the same. The authorities held that the petitioner had the premises of his own and he could have occupied the same for his residential as well as business purposes. The authorities further rightly held that there were 16 members in the family of the landlord and they bonafide required the suit premises for their use and occupation. The authorities observed that nothing was brought out from the cross examination of the witnesses of the landlord to disprove their case in the examination in chief. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the judgments of the rent controller and the appellate authority are cryptic and non-reasoned judgments and are unsustainable, is liable to be rejected, as both the authorities have duly discussed the evidence on record to grant permission to the landlord to issue quit notice under clauses 13(3)(ii)(iv)(v)&(vi) of the Rent Control Order. The judgment reported in 2010(3) Mh.L.J. Page 163 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP