1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5000 OF 2009 M/s. Kalinga Automobiles and Engineering Works and others -vs- Mahasukhlal Ranghuji Ajmera thr. LR’s Smt.REkhaben Kamdar and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.V. Purohit, Adv. for petitioners. Shri A.M. Ghare, Adv. for R-1 to 6. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 9, 2010. 1) Heard Shri S.V.Purohit, Adv. for petitioners and Shri A.M. Ghare, Adv. for respondents No.1 to 6. 2) The Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority has granted permission to respondent-landlord to terminate tenancy of petitioner under Clauses 13 (3) (v), (vi) and (ix) of C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949. Clause (v) deals with tenant securing alternate accommodation. Clause (vi) is about bona fide, while Clause (ix) is about acts of nuisance. 3) Advocate Shri Purohit for petitioners has contended that suit shop is located on ground floor in a multi storied building, which is entirely for commercial purposes and some shop blocks are available on first floor. He states that landlord could have used those shop blocks. He further points out that tenant has not secured another alternate accommodation and because of high handed acts of landlord, which resulted in obstruction in user of shop block, the 2 tenant was constrained to use another shop block in the premises of Ayodhya Complex at Ram Nagar temporarily. He argued that as the landlord was deliberately creating disturbances and obstructions, the electric supply was disconnected and the Shop and Establishments Licence was not renewed. He further argues that it is landlord, who created nuisance for tenant and for said purpose he has invited attention to communication dated 3rd May, 1993 i.e. legal notice Exhibit-A-7. 4) Advocate Shri Ghare on the other hand states that the findings reached at by the Appellate Authority are in no way perverse and as those findings are concurrent interferes in writ jurisdiction is not warranted. 5) With the assistance of both learned counsel, I have perused the order passed by Rent Controller as also by Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has found that the contention of the landlord is corroborated by documentary as well as oral evidence and also by admissions given by tenant during cross-examination. Landlord examined one Hemendra Ajmire, Motilal Israni a shop keeper and Mr.Ashok Utane, Inspector under Shops and Establishment Act. The correspondence placed on record vide Exhibit-A-2 to Exhibit-A-14 and and complaints from neighbours Exhibit-A-15 to Exhibit-A-18 are also looked into by Appellate Authority. There are unpaid electric bills Exhibit-A-19 to Exhibit-A-37. The witnesses for petitioner admitted that electric supply was disconnected due to non- payment of bills and no attempt was made to restore the electric connection. Advocate Purohit, however, has pointed out that in 2008 Consumer Forum has directed restoration of 3 electric supply providing by new meter. It has also found that telephone was also shifted from that shop block in 1994-95. The shop establishment licence was also cancelled and it was not renewed after 1993-94. The Sales-Tax Return and Income-Tax Return was also not filed from 1993-94. It has also found that he was doing business from Ram Nagar house. All this material show that suit premises were not being used for any purpose from 1994-95 and the finding in this respect reached by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority cannot be labelled as erroneous or perverse. 6) Landlord has stated that he needed shop block on ground floor for one of his sons and that reason is found substantiated by both the Courts. The availability of premises on other floors raises some questions of facts and petitioner-tenant could have examined landlord to find out availability of those premises for business. In any case petitioner could have offered to occupy vacant premises on first floor or any other floor for his business. Admittedly, this has not been done. The concurrent finding on bona fide need does not require interference. 7) The shop-keeper examined by landlord and also the other witnesses have deposed about nuisance. The notice at Exhibit-A-7 shows that tenant is complaining of nuisance from landlord. The consideration of facts by authorities in this connection is not demonstrate to be perverse. 8) Advocate Shri Purohit has argued that one of the non-applicant viz. N. Anant Krushn Iyer had already expired on 24/05/2001 and landlord had not filed any application to bring his legal heirs on record. According to him, the tenancy is one and indivisible and as permission cannot be 4 used against legal heirs of N. Anant Krushna Iyer and hence that permission is rendered infructuous. 9) Advocate Shri Ghare has pointed out that the premises are let out to a partnership concern vide document Exhibit-A-1. The perusal of the said document dated 1st October, 1979 shows that premises are let out to a partnership firm, which at that time had five partners. The said document is signed by five persons as partners and one of the partner has expired during pendency of proceedings. The effect of death of one of the partner has not been pointed out on record and no deed of partnership has been produced by petitioners either before Rent Controller or before Appellate Authority for that purpose. The argument that tenancy is one and indivisible or permission therefore lapses cannot be appreciated in the absence of this material. 10) No case is therefore made out warranting any interference in the present writ petition. Writ petition dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Khunte