The tenants have companye in appeal by grant of special leave in L.P. No.
3484 of 1991 against the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 11.12.1987 and S.L.P. No.
1356 of 1986 was filed by the respondent landlord under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
It was companytended on behalf of the tenants appellants that the Writ Petition No.
The Learned Single Judge by his order dated 11.12.1987 remanded the matter to the Rent Controller with the above directions.
From the Judgments and Orders dated 11.12.1987 and 23.10.1989 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.
R. Lalit, Dr. N.M. Ghatate, Anand Prasad, S.V. Deshpande and Ms. Priya Shrivastava for the Appellants.
227 of the Constitution against which Letters Patent Appeal was number maintainable.
L. Sanghi, Dhruv Mehta, S.K. Metha and Aman Vachher for the Respondents.
In the relief prayed in the writ petition it was clearly mentioned that the order dated 13.9.1985 passed by the Rent Controller, Gondia, and the orders dated 31.3.1986 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Bhandara be quashed and set aside by a suitable writ, order or direction.
2588 89 of 1992.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Dr. Radhyshyam, the respondent, filed an application under Section 13 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 hereinafter referred to as The Rent Control Order against the appellants for permission to serve with numberice of ejectment.
109 of 1989.
The Resident Deputy Collector, Bhandara dismissed the appeal by order dated 31.3.1986 Dr. Radhyshyam, the landlord, then filed a writ petition No.
1356 of 1986 under Articles 226 to 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
1356/1986 and Letters Patent Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. Special Leave granted.
The application was based on several grounds, but the eviction was pressed in the High Court only on the ground of need of the entire house for bona fide occupation and habitual default in the payment of rent.
The Deputy Collector and Rent Controller, Gondia, decided all the grounds against the landlord and dismissed the application by his order dated 13.9.1985.
The matter was argued only on the aforesaid two grounds, before us also.
2980 of 1990 against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 23.10.1989.
The tenants appellants aggrieved against the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench by order dated 23.10.1989 dismissed the appeal taking the view that in truth and substance the order was passed by the Learned Single Judge under Art.
