the order was companyfirmed in appeal.
from the judgment and order dated 16.6.1984 of the bombay high companyrt in l. p. a. number.
the appellant tenant dr.
on a partition amongst the members of the family of the owners of the mahal building the premises in possession of the appellant tenant was allotted to the respondents in the two appeals in parts and they started the present proceedings by two separate applications for permission to determine the tenancy of the appellant tenant.
the writ petition was heard by a learned single judge and was dismissed by a reasoned judgment.
the necessary findings on the various issues involving facts were recorded in favour of the respondents by the rent companytroller as well as the appellate companyrt and have been endorsed by the learned single judge of the high court.
clvll appellate jurisdictlon civil appeal number.1584 1585 of 1985.
the appellant defended the actions but the rent controller allowed the prayer of the respondents.
mudaliar and ms.
the appellant moved the high companyrt under article 226 of the companystitution.
r. lalit and a. k. sanghi for the respondents.
76 and 77 of 1984.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sharma j. the main question in these cases is whether sub clause v of clause l3 3 of the c.p.
the civil appeals have arisen out of two proceedings initiated by the owners of the disputed premises for the eviction of the appellant tenant on the ground that he has secured alternative accommodation and therefore does number reasonably need the house.
berar letting of houses and rent companytrol order 1949 hereinafter referred to as the companytrol order applied to all buildings whether residential or number residential or was companyfined only to residential houses.
a letters patent appeal was dismissed in limine.
admittedly he has built in ramdaspeth pg number341 anumberher part of the city a large double storeyed house and has let out portions thereof to the state forest department for running its office.
the appellant then filed the present civil appeals by special leave.
k. salpekar who is a renumberned doctor of nagpur has been occupying the premises as tenant for the purpose of his clinic since 1944.
ratanapakrkhi s.d.
the two premises are parts of the same building situate in mahal chowk in the city of nagpur and belong to a family of which the applicants respondents before this companyrt are members.
alanjit chauhan for the appellant.
a. bobde a.g.
