1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4078 OF 2010 Suresh Bhawarlal Jain Age about 50 years, Jain Medical Stores, Old City, Akola Tahsil and District Akola. …. Petitioner. V e r s u s 1)Deleted as dead 2)Suresh Bansilal Agrawal Age about 59 years, Business R/o Mumbai. 3)Kirankumar Bansilal Agrawal Age about 59 years, Business 4)Prakash Bansilal Agrawal Age about 57 years, Occupation Business R/o Mumbai. 5)Pradip Bansilal Agrawal Age about 55 years, Business 6)Smt.Jyoti W/o Ajay Agrawal Age about 45 years, Household R/o Indore (Madhya Pradesh) Nos.1, 3, 5 R/o Ratanlal Plots, Akola, Tahsil & District Akola. ….. Respondents. .....2/- 2 Shri B.N.Mohta, counsel for petitioner Shri C.A.Joshi, counsel for respondents CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 18th APRIL, 2011. Oral Judgment. 1) Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2) This writ petition challenges the order dated 20.3.2010 passed by the Additional Collector, Akola, allowing Revision Appeal No.Akola/BRA-13(3)/ Akola/5/05-06, filed by the respondents landlord and granting permission under Clause 13(3) (vi) and (vii) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. 3) The Appellate Court has granted permission to the respondents/landlords to determine the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement under Clause 13 (3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. The bonafide need put forth in the application was of the landlord, for the business of medical shop. The landlord has expired and his legal heirs are brought on record. There is nothing on record to show that after the original landlord expired, .....3/- 3 the need in question subsisted. If the legal heirs brought on record, wanted the premises for their own occupation, then they have to file separate application putting forth the ground for eviction. Such was not the application before the original authority i.e. rent controller or the appellate authority. In view of this, the order passed by the appellate authority granting permission under Clause 13(3) (vi) Rent Control Order cannot be sustained. 4) So far as permission on the ground of carrying out essential repairs, under Clause 13(3) (vii) of the Rent Control Order is concerned, the appellate authority has conducted the spot inspection on 21.11.2009. The petitioner tenant was present at the time of spot inspection. In this spot inspection report, the finding is recorded by the appellate court that the front wall of the shop in question is on the verge of collapse. The petitioner-tenant has not raised any objection to the spot inspection nor has sought permission to lead evidence in that respect. The appellate court has recorded the finding of fact upon the personal inspection of the spot. Hence, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the appellate court, on the ground of essential repairs under Clause 13(3) (vii) of the Rent Control Order. 5) In view of above, the petition is partly allowed, setting .....4/- 4 aside the order dated 20.3.2010 passed by the Additional Collector, Akola, granting permission to determine the tenancy on the ground under Clause Clause 13(3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order. So far as challenge to the said order granting permission under Clause Clause 13(3) (vii) is concerned, there is no substance in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Brwankhede ...../-