It appears that after remand, the respondent .brought it to the numberice of the Addl.
D. C. passed an order of provisional allotment in favour of the appellant on the same day and since then, the appellant has been in possession of the said premises.
The respondent then came to know about the said provisional allotment and gave intimation to the Addl.
This allegation was repeated by the respondent in his second writ petition and it was urged by him that in view of the fact that the appellant had a place of business of his own, he was number entitled to the accommodation alloted to him by the impugned order.
On April 10, 1956, Mr.Justice Bhutt set aside the order of allotment and remanded the case for disposal in accordance with law.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 18, 1958, of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur, in Misc.
jogeshwar s o Parmanand Bhishikar hereinafter called the respondent owns a house known as the Bhishikar Bhawan in Nagpur.
Block No.
He held that the respondent did number need the premises for his own occupation and he thought that there was numbergoing back on the earlier provisional order of allotment in favour of the appellant.
D. C. that the appellant owned As.
N. Kerdekar, N. K. Kherdakar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent No.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. This appeal raises a short question about the companystruction of clauses 23, 24 and 24 A in The Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 hereinafter called the Order .
307 of 1955 for cancellation of the said order.
On July 23, 1956, the Addl.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, S. N. Andley, and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant.
/4/ share in the Hind Vastra Bhandar and that he had, therefore a place where he companyld carry on his business.
By companysent, the said Letters Patent Appeal and the subsequent writ petition filed by the respondent were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court.
D. C. purporting to exercise his powers under clause 23 1 of the Order companyfirmed the provisional allotment in favour of the appellant.
Since the tenant was in arrears as to rent,, the respondent obtained from the Rent Control Authorities permission to terminate the said tenancy.
95 of 1956 against the decision of Bhutt, J., on the earlier writ petition filed by the respondent.
From the affidavit filed by the appellant in that behalf it does appear that the appellant had a share in the Hind Vastra Bbandar and Krishna Watch Co both of which Partnerships carried on their business at Nagpur, but on April 8, 1957 the said partnerships had been dissolved and so, after the said date of dissolution there was numberplace of business to which the appellant companyld lay any claim.
Commissioner, Nagpur, on July 15, 1955, that the premises occupied by the said tenant were likely to fall vacant, and prayed that the same should be allotted to him as he was a displaced person within the meaning of the Order.
D. C. that he needed the, premises for his own purposes, and so, he moved for the cancellation of the said provisional allotment order.
That is how the first stage of this dispute came to an end.
391 of 1956.
In support of this plea, the appellant has filed the deed of Dissolution in question.,
201/60.
The respondent then moved the Nagpur High Court by a writ petition No.
2A had been let out by him to a firm known as the Dayalbagh Stores for carrying on business.
This plea was met by the appellant on the ground that the business mentioned by the respondent bad been dissolved.
The Addl.
November 8.
Meanwhile, the tenant intimated to the respondent by telegram on July 24, 1955, that it had vacated the said premises on that day.
Prior to the receipt of this telegram, however, the appellant Chimandas Bagomal Sindhi had made an application to the Addl.
391 of 1956 .
This second order was challenged by the respondent by another writ petition filed in the Nagpur High Court No.
Meanwhile, the appellant had filed a Letters Patent Appeal No.
The Division Bench has set aside the order of allotment passed in favour of the appellant and allowed the subsequent writ petition filed by the respondent.
On remand, the Addl.
Commissioner companyfirmed the earlier order.
It is against this order that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
