VISHWANATH Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appeared for the petitioners on 01 -04 -2015. As the writ petition is of 1998, the learned Advocates for the respondents were heard for sometime and the matter was kept on 06 -04 -2015, as part -heard. Today again none appeared for the petitioners. Heard Shri J.J. Chandurkar, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and Shri D.B. Patel, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE respondent No. 2 -landlord filed an application before the House Rent Controller under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rent Control Order, 1949"), seeking permission to terminate the tenancy of the original petitioner -tenant. The House Rent Controller, by the order dated 16 -01 -1998, rejected the application filed by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 had filed appeal challenging the above mentioned order which came to be allowed by the learned Additional Collector and the respondent No. 2 was granted permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order, 1949 to terminate the tenancy of the original petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Collector has filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the objection as raised by the respondent No. 2 in the return can be entertained. Shri J.J. Chandurkar, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 has relied on the judgment given in the case of Vithaldas and others vs. Mansukhlal reported in : 1980 Mh.L.J. 612. The above referred judgment lays down that the respondent can support the impugned order by raising appropriate challenges in the return, to the findings recorded by the subordinate authorities against the respondent. However, in the present case, the respondent No. 2 in effect is challenging the order passed by the House Rent Controller concluding that the bonafide need of the respondent No. 2 does not survive. It cannot be said that the respondent No. 2 is challenging the findings recorded by the House Rent Controller. Faced with this situation, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the challenges as made in the return may be considered as challenges raised by way of counter -petition and the respondent No. 2 be permitted to pay the Court fee. In view of the facts on the record that the findings of the House Rent Controller are recorded pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 04 -10 -2010 and 10 -07 -2014, in my view, the request made on behalf of the respondent No. 2 can be granted. The challenges raised by the respondent No. 2 in the return to the findings recorded by the House Rent Controller can be treated as challenges raised by way of counter -petition. The respondent No. 2 shall pay the required Court fee within four weeks.