1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. L.P.A. No.130/2011 in WRIT PETITION No.2686/1998 (D) ( Roopsingh Namdeo Rathod .vs. Chandrakant Harikisan Rathi and others. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. Deshpande, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. N.W. Sambre, G.P. For Respondents No.2 and 3. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 21, 2011 Heard. The learned Single Judge has vide judgment dated 1.7.2010 allowed writ petition filed by respondent no.1/landlord and restored permission granted by Rent Controller under Clauses 13 (3)(i) (ii) and (iv) of the Rent Control Order, 1949. Advocate Mr. Deshpande argues that appellate authority has recorded the finding in favour of the appellant/tenant and found that habitual defaults were not established. He has taken us to discussion as contained in para 3 of the appellate order for said purpose. The contention of respondent/landlord was tenant was irregular and despite protest, he did not make payments. The appellant/tenant contended that he made payments regularly but receipts were issued belatedly. The appellate authority has only relied upon rent receipts as issued to upset the finding of the Rent 2 Controller. Only because of the rent receipts, the appellate authority found that the appellant/tenant was not defaulter. The facts clearly show that even if the contention of landlord or tenant is to be accepted, rent receipts have not been issued regularly. The evidence looked into by the appellate authority therefore, is totally irrelevant. The appellant is not in a position to point out any other evidence to show that he has effected payment regularly and landlord has issued receipts belatedly. The changer of user is also held to be proved because initial user was for a grain shop and receipts have been issued in the name of Rajendra Stores. Later change is to eating house. These facts are not in dispute. In this view of the matter and in the light of the arguments as advanced, we find no case is made out. L.P.A. is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE halwai