Sharma, J. - (1.) These appeals arise out of a proceeding under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order) initiated by Shah Gokuldas, appellant in C.A. No. 1954 of 1980 (respondent in the other appeal) for permission, to determine the lease of Bhagwanji, the original tenant. After the death of Bhagwanji during the pendency of the case, Rashiklal and others, the appellants in C.A. No. 1953 of 1980 were substituted as his legal representatives.
(2.) The landlord's prayer was based on alleged wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement under sub-clauses (ii) and (vi) respectively of Clause 13(3) of the Rent Control Order. The allegations were denied by the tenant and the Rent Controller dismissed the application. The landlord's appeals was also rejected by the appellate authority, the Resident Deputy Collector. The landlord thereafter approached the High Court which confirmed the impugned orders so far as the ground of bona fide necessity was concerned, but allowed the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India holding that the tenant was a habitual defeaulter in payment of rent and, therefore, liable to eviction. The appellants in C.A. No. 1953 of 1980 have challenged the order of their eviction and the landlord Shah Gokuldas has appealed against the finding of the courts below negativing his case of bona fide requirement.
(3.) So far as C.A. No. 1954 of 1980 is concerned, both the Rent Controller and the Resident Deputy Collector have on a careful consideration of all the relevant circumstances held that the landlord-applicant has failed to prove his case of bona fide requirement. The High Court while confirming the finding has again considered the materials on the record. The learned counsel for the landlord has not been able to point out any acceptable ground for interfering with the concurrent findings of the three courts and C.A. No. 1954 of 1980 is, therefore, dismissed.;