- (1.)THE petitioner is the landlord of the premises, being house No. 9/857, located in Pratap chouk Amravati. He purchased the same for valuable consideration on January 27, 1967 from the original landlady one Dhapuabi widow of Deorao. The respondent No. 1 Narayandas was inducted as a tenant prior to the date of purchase and the present petitioner moved an application against him under the provisions of C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereafter called the Order), Seeking permission to determine the lease of Narayandas under Clauses 13 (3) (I) (ii) and (iii) of the Order. To this application he also added respondent No. 2 Ratabla Agrarwal alleging that he was inducted by the tenant without any written permission from the landlord.
(2.)IT does appear that both these respondents were properly served. Only respondent No. 1 Narayandas chose to file written statement. respondent No. 2 i. e. Ratanlal did not file any statement before the Rent control authority and it is patent from the records of that case that he even did not enter the witness-box. He was neither examined by Narayandas.
(3.)NOW the case which falls for consideration in this petition is that the Rent Controller had found upon evidence that this Ratanlal was inducted by Narayandas and the requirements of clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Order have been fully satified. That finding is recorded after taking into account the plea of Narayandas and the earlier conudct of the landlady in which she had complained against the said non-applicant under Exh. N. A. 6, that Ratanlal was a sub-tenant inducted on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- The submission that was made to the controller was that there was an endoresement which cancelled the notice so given and, therefore, the landlady mau be presumed to have given consent to the sub-tenancy. The rent contoller found, as there was no written consent, the requirements of item (iii) of clause 13 (3) were fully satified. Then the matter went up in appeal and the appellate court took the view in the last paragrpah of his order that on the reverse of a rent receipt there was an endoresement to the effect that the earlier notice given by the pleader was cancelled and from this fact, the learned appellate court observed:
". . . . . . . . . Though this concellation of the notice cannot be taken to mean that previous landlord had permitted the sub-tenancy, it certainly means that respondent No. 2 is not exactly a sub-tenant of the appellant. "
After drawing such an inference from theendoresement it is further observed gthat "there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant accepted the rent from the subtenant for the use of the premises. " Further fact that Ratanalal was occupying the suit premises before the purchase was treated as relevant and a conclusion is drawn that the state of affairs of the evidence was discrepant to arrive at a definite finding that respondent No. 2 was a sub-tenant of the appellant and that he was receiving the rent from him. There is some such observationalso that may mean that the landlord was estopped from saying that Ratanlal was a sub-tenant, and that is how the appellate authority allowed the appeal as far as the plea under item (iii) of clause 13 (3) was concerned.