Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the permission granted by the Controller was set aside.
The Controller, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties formulated five issues and came to the companyclusion that the tenant is a habitual defaulter the tenant has sub let the premises to the Sewing Machine firm and the need of the landlord is bona fide.
On an appeal, being carried under Section 21 of the aforesaid order, the Collector and Additional District Magistrate, who is the Appellate Authority, under the Control Order set aside the findings of the Controller on all the three issues and came to hold that the tenant cannot be held to be a habitual defaulter, that the landlord has failed to establish that the tenant has sub let the premises and that the bona fide need has vanished as the need indicated in the application being for the business of his son and the son died in the meantime.
The question for companysideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of the Appellate Court under the Control order?
The landlord assailed the legality of the order of the Appellate Authority by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court.
With these companyclusions the Controller granted permission for determining the tenancy of the tenant under Section 13 3 ii , iii and vi of the Contrtol Order.
Though the money order form itself do number indicate the period for which the money was being sent.
The Single Judge of the High Court in a Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution interfered with the judgment of the Appellate Authority under the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949.
The respondent landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller under Section 13 3 ii , iii and vi of the Rent Control Order seeking permission to determine the tenancy of the appellant, inter alia on the ground that the tenant is a habitual defaulter and has sub let the premises and further, the landlord needs the premises for bona fide use.
PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.
LITTTTTTTJ This appeal is by the tenant assailing the order of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, at Nagpur Bench, as well as the judgment of the Division Bench affirming the same.
