Appellant filed a Special Civil Application No.
2 of Clause 23.
2 of Clause 23.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 4th July, 1978 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Application No.
It was further companytended that in a proceeding under the Rent Control Order, that late Shri Basantrai Sharma, the deceased landlord, had sought possession of the premises on the ground of bona fide personal requirement but he had lost the same.
51/A 71 2 /76 77 against the present appellant Mansaram alleging that the appellant had occupied the premises involved in the dispute in companytravention of sub cl.
The House Allotment Officer held that Shri Basantrai Sharma let out the premises to the appellant in the year 1954 in companytravention of clause 22 1 b of the Rent Control Order and the appellant occupied the premises in companytravention of clause 22 2 of the Rent Control Order and therefore, he was liable to be evicted under clause 28.
It was further alleged that the former owner of the premises Shri Basantrai Sharma has died.
The premises have been inherited by respondent 4 Smt.
It was further alleged that Shri S. P. Pathak is a near relation of Shri Basantrai Sharma and that he has been put forward by Smt.
1957 of 1977 before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.
It was further alleged that the appellant Shri S. P. Pathak was badly in need of premises and therefore, the premises may be allotted to him.
In the application made by Shri S. P. Pathak, Ist respondent on December 7, 1976, it was in terms stated that the appellant Shri Mansaram Sharma was a Government servant employed in the telephone department at Nagpur and the appellant has number retired from service and therefore, is number entitled to retain the demised premises.
Usha Rani N. Sharma was also impleaded as a respondent but after having once appeared through advocate, she did number prefer to remain present along with her companynsel and the House Allotment Officer proceeded against her ex parte.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
L. Sanghi, B. Datta, V. A Boby Shyam Mudaliar and B. Singh for the Appellant.
1 of Clause 23 or Clause 24 or without an assurance from the landlord that the premises are being permitted to be occupied in accordance with sub cl.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1 Shri S. P. Pathak made an application to House Allotment Officer, Nagpur registered as Miscellaneous Case No.
R. Agarwal.
Respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Appellant Shri Mansaram son of Shri Chanduram Sharma was serving in the telephone office at Nagpur and was thus holding an office of profit under the Union of India.
Usha Rani N. Sharma for seeking a companylusive order.
Accordingly, the House Allotment Officer by his order dated November 2, 1977 gave a direction to the appellant to vacate the premises within a fortnight from the companymunication of the order and deliver the possession of the premises to Smt.
It was further alleged that it is incorrect to say that he occupied the house under any allotment order.
1262 N of 1978.
Usha Rani N. Sharma and she and the tenant Mansaram Sharma have companyspired together and are violating the provision of law by letting Shri Mansaram Sharma to companytinue to live in the premises.
P. G. Gokhale and Miss Vijayalakshmi for the Respondent.
Shri Basantrai Sharma died and there is a dispute between respondents 3 and 4 and Shri Prabhakar about succession to the estate of the deceased Shri Basantrai Sharma.
He companytinued to be in possession even after his retirement from service in 1967.
75 per month, more particularly described in the application made to the House Allotment Officer, Nagpur by first respondent Shri S. P. Pathak, from the then owner of the premises one Shri Basantrai Sharma.
Respondents 3 and 4 claimed to be the legatees under a will of deceased Shri Basantrai Sharma.
He took on lease premises on a monthly rent of Rs.
1957 of 1977.
It was further stated that since his retirement in July, 1967, he has been accepted as tenant and therefore, numberproceeding can be taken against him under Clause 28 of the Rent Control Order for alleged companytravention of clause 22.
To this petition, respondent 4 Smt.
Appellant Shri Mansram Sharma appeared and filed a written statement inter alia companytending that he occupied the premises on the assurance given by the then landlord Shri Basantrai Sharma that the house is being permitted to be occupied in accordance with sub cl.
Usha Rani N. Sharma failing which action will be taken under clause 28 1 of the Rent Control Order.
