1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.235/2009 Kantilal V.Jada(Dead)thru.LR’s V.K.Jada & ors..vs. Addl.Collector, Amt.&ors Letters Patent Appeal No.233/2009 Kantilal V.Jada(Dead)thru.LR’s V.K.Jada & ors..vs. Addl.Collector, Amt.&ors Letters Patent Appeal No.234/2009 Kantilal V.Jada(Dead)thru.LR’s V.K.Jada & ors..vs. Addl.Collector, Amt.&ors Letters Patent Appeal No.252/2009 Kantilal V.Jada(Dead)thru.LR’s V.K.Jada & ors..vs. Addl.Collector, Amt.&ors Letters Patent Appeal No.248/2009 Kantilal V.Jada(Dead)thru.LR’s V.K.Jada & ors..vs. SDO,Rent Controller,Achalpur and another Letters Patent Appeal No.249/2009 Kantilal V.Jada(Dead)thru.LR’s V.K.Jada & ors..vs. SDO,Rent Controller,Achalpur and another Letters Patent Appeal No.250/2009 Kantilal V.Jada(Dead)thru.LR’s V.K.Jada & ors..vs. SDO,Rent Controller,Achalpur and another Letters Patent Appeal ST.No.5244/2009 Kantilal V.Jada(Dead)thru.LR’s V.K.Jada & ors..vs. SDO,Rent Controller,Achalpur and another ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri V.S.Bapat, Advocate for appellants. CORAM: S. A. BOBDE & F. M. REIS,JJ. Date of reserving order 19/06/2009 Date of pronouncement of order ___/07/2009 P.C. Heard Mr.Bapat, learned counsel for the appellants. The above appeals are disposed of by this common order 2 as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18/2/2009 was also a common order, disposing of 8 writ petitions bearing Nos.827/97, 828/97, 829/97, 830/97,831/97,832/97,833/97 and 834/97 filed by respondent No.3 against the appellants. By the impugned order/judgment the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that it was necessary for the Rent Controller to grant permission to the respondent No.3 under Clause13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control Order and as such, allowed the applications of the respondent No.3 to seek permission under the said provision of the Rent Control order. The respondent No.3, who is landlord, filed proceedings against the appellants for grant of permission to issue quit notice to the appellants under clause 13(3)(i) and(ii) of the Rent Control order. It was the case of the respondent No.3 that a notice was issued to the appellants on 10/1/1989 asking them to pay arrears of rent from 16/1/1987 to 15/12/1988. A civil suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.403/1989 was filed by the respondent No.3 for recovery of the rent for the period from 16/01/1987 to 15/12/1988. It was pleaded by the said respondent that the tenancy was monthly and that the appellants were in arrears of rent for the period from 16/01/1987 to 15/12/1988. After the civil suit was instituted, the 3 appellants paid arrears of rent. But, however, the balance on the date on which the amount was deposited, was not paid by the appellants and as such 8 separate applications were filed by the respondent No.3 before the Rent Controller for seeking permission to issue quit notice, as the appellants were habitual defaulters in payment of rent for different periods which were mentioned in each application. The appellants filed written statement and denied the allegations made by the respondent No.3-landlord. It was the case of the appellants that they would pay the rent to the respondent No. 3, but the respondent No.3 used to accept the rent after every one or two years without any demur and that the appellants were not habitual defaulters. After evidence was recorded, the Rent Controller rejected the applications filed by respondent no.3. The appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority came to be dismissed by common order dated 7/11/1996. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.3 preferred the aforesaid writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. By common judgment dated 18/02/2009, the learned Single Judge, allowed the petitions filed by the respondent No.3 and the applications filed by the respondent No.3 were allowed so far as they seek permission under 4 clause 13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control order. The present appeals are filed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel appearing for appellants submitted that there was no justification for the learned Single Judge to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and to come to a contrary conclusion and allow the petitions filed by the respondent No.3. The learned counsel further submitted that the record does not disclose that the appellants were habitual defaulter in payment of rent, as, according to him, there was no evidence to show that the rent was being paid on monthly basis and consequently the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. Having heard learned counsel and on perusal of the record before us, we find that there was no error committed by the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge has observed that the notice was issued by Respondent No.3-Landlord to appellants/tenants on 10/1/1989 which was not replied to by the appellants. As the rent was not paid regularly from month to month and the appellants did not reply to the said notice, Regular Civil Suit bearing no.403/1989 was filed against the appellants for recovering the amount of 5 arrears of rent for the above said period. It was further noted by the learned Single Judge that it was categorically pleaded by the respondent no.3 that in the said suit, the tenancy was monthly. A document was also produced before the Rent Controller to show that the appellants himself had agreed that the tenancy between the parties was a monthly tenancy. The learned Single Judge also noted that despite the said notice dated 10/1/1989 which stated that the tenancy was monthly and that the rent was payable every month, the appellants failed to pay the same though several proceedings were initiated. As such, the learned Single Judge allowed the petitions filed by the respondent No.3. We find that though the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had dismissed the applications filed by respondent No.3, nevertheless, the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing and setting aside the orders of the said Authorities inasmuch as the document namely the notice dated 10/1/1089, which was very material for the decision in the matter, was not at all considered by the said Authorities. Apart from that the admission of appellants to the effect that the tenancy was monthly and the Authorities had not considered the admission of the appellants that they had received the said notice from respondent No.3 in which he had stated that 6 there was an agreement to pay the rent month to month and yet they had not deposited any money after the initial deposit in the said suit. The finding given by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority without considering a material document which has a bearing to the matter in controversy, is itself a perverse finding which justified interference by the learned Single Judge. The issuance of the said notice dated 10/1/1989 was a warning to the appellants to see that the rents were being paid regularly in future from month to month. As a said crucial aspect was not considered by the Authorities below, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants was unable to point out any infirmity committed by the learned Single Judge which would call for interference by this Court in the present appeals. As such, there is no merit in the above appeals and consequently, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Andurkar.