S.W. Puranik, J.
1. The petitioner Sardarsingh is the tenant of Block No. 306/24 belonging to the respondent Shrirang Chandak situate at Mofusil Plot Amravati. The respondent landlord filed an application in November 1971 against the present petitioner-tenant under Clause 13(3)(iii), (v) and (ix) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 before the Rent Controller. The petitioner tenant field his written statement and upon recording evidence and hearing parties, the Rent Controller rejected the landlord's application on all counts to terminate the tenancy under the various clauses of the Rent Control Order. This was in Revenue Case No. 135/71(2)/71-72 dated 5-7-1973.
2. The respondent landlord feeling aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector having Rent Control Appellate Powers at Amravati. This was registered as Appeal No. 12/71(2)/73-74. The Appellate Court upon hearing the Counsel of both sides agreed with the Rent Controller in so far as the rejection of the application under Clause 13(3)(iii) and (ix) are concerned. However, in so far as the respondent's claim for seeking permission under Clause 13(3)(v) was concerned, the learned Resident Deputy Collector allowed the appeal and granted the respondent permission to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner tenant. This order came to be passed on 31-3-1975. It seems that the petitioner tenant again preferred a review application before the same Appellate Authority which was registered as Review Application No. 16/74-75, but the same was also rejected by the Resident Deputy Collector on 178-1975. It is against this order that the petitioner has now come up before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
3. Since the permission granted to the respondent landlord is under Clause 13(3)(v), the petitioners' Counsel also restricted his contentions on that ground only. The briefly facts of the case may be stated as follows.
4. For seeking permission under Clause 13(3)(v) of the Rent Control Order, the respondent landlord contended that during the subsistence of the petitioner's tenancy, the petitioner has secured alternative accommodation, he having purchased a huge building on Jawahar Road at Amravati and that the petitioner tenant had also got the first floor of the said building vacated through Rental Control Authorities and that he has shifted his residence with his entire family to the said new building. Thus, the respondent's say was that the petitioner tenancy has secured alternative accommodation and does not reasonably need the premises of the respondent.
5. During the course of evidence before the Rent Controller, the respondent landlord had, filed certified copies (Exts. A-1 and A-2) being certified copies of the rent control proceedings started by the tenant Sardarsingh against the occupants of his newly purchased house. They were proceedings in Rent Control Case No. 501/71(2)/67-68 of Amravati (Ex. A-1) and a copy of the deposition given by the petitioner Sardarsingh in the said rent control case being Ex. A-2. These two certified copies which are admitted on record and also admitted by the petitioner Sardarsingh during the evidence before the trial Court clearly show that the petitioner purchased a house bearing Nos. 771, 772 and 773 situate in Ward No. 24 of Amravati, and that he got it vacated from one Gautam Motiram who was at the material time running Lodging and Boarding House. In the deposition the present petitioner Sardarsingh had also stated that he has got 9 members over the age of 12 years in his family and that the said is the only house of his own in Amravati. He also stated that he desired the house for his bona fide residence which was at that time occupied by his tenant Gautam Motiram. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner Sardarsingh after getting the same vacated from his tenant occupied the said for residential purposes. Not only that he carried several modifications in the new house and instead of a large hall on the first floor he sub-divided into four rooms. The only contention of Shri J.N. Chandurkar on behalf of the petitioner tenant is that even though admitting that the tenant has purchased the house, got it vacated and has shifted to the said house, yet the petitioner's family consisting of 12 members cannot be conveniently accommodated into said new house and he still needs the present suit premises for his occupation. According to Shri Chandurkar, the mere fact that a tenant has secured alternative accommodation is not sufficient to grant permission to the landlord, but on the other hand the landlord has to establish further that the tenant having secured alternative accommodation does not reasonably need the suit house. Shri Chandurkar relied upon the ruling in Smt. Gulabben and another v. Deputy Collector, Nagpur, reported in 1970 Mh.L.J. 328. Shri Chandurkar, therefore, contended that in the instant case the petitioner tenant has established that even though he has secured alternative accommodation, he also reasonably need the original tenanted premises also and hence permission granted in favour of the landlord by the resident Deputy Collector, Amravati should be struck down.
6. Shri V.A. Masodkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the contentions of the petitioner. According to him, there is a constructive estoppel in so far as the tenant petitioner is concerned inasmuch as he had applied to the Rent Controller while seeking permission to reject his own tenant of the new house on the ground that he has no other house of his own in the city of Amravati and hence he needs the entire premises for his bona fide occupation of the family. He had also stated before the said Rent Controller that he has about 8 to 10 members in his family and that he desires the entire accommodation to accommodate his family. Shri Masodkar laid special emphasis on the fact that the petitioner Sardarsingh in his proceedings against his own tenant has suppressed the fact that he needed the new house from his tenant in addition to the accommodation which he was occupying with the present respondent landlord. In so far as the appreciation of evidence is concerned. Shri Masodkar laid emphasis on the fact that it was established before the trial Court that the present premises were vacated by the petitioner when he secured the alternative accommodation and on the other hand allowed the use thereof by 5 or 6 students from Punjab area to occupy the same. This fact by itself will show that the petitioner tenant at least during that continuous period of 10 months did not need the suit premises reasonably for his own need. In this view of the matter Shri Masodkar contended that the order of the Lower Appellate Court is justified and needs no interference. He also pointed out that after the said order was passed, the petition has been preferred after a lapse of about 6 months which is not within a reasonable period and hence is liable to be summarily rejected.
7. With the assistance of the Counsel for both the parties, I have gone through the record of the Rent Control Proceedings; the pleadings of both the parties, the documents and the evidence tendered before the trial Court as well as the judgments of the Rent Controller and the Resident Deputy Collector.
8. It is well settled by the various pronouncements of the Supreme Court that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are not to be exercised merely to correct errors by the lower courts but only in cases where patent miscarriage of justice has been pointed out or that the order of the lower Court or Tribunal is misconceived and grossly erroneous and not sustainable by the evidence and documents on record. In the light of this position, I have gone through the evidence tendered by both the parties and the impugned reasonings of the Resident Deputy Collector. Shri Chandurkar for the petitioner was unable to point out any perversity in the reasonings, but contended that in view of the decision in 1970 Mh.L.J. 328 referred earlier, it was the boundant duty of the Resident Deputy Collector to find out whether inspite of having secured alternative accommodation the petitioner also reasonably needed the suit premises. No doubt in the rulings cited by Shri Chandurkar, it has been laid down that the words 'and does not reasonably need the house' in Clause 13(3)(v) of the Rent Control Order have to be read with both the parts of the clause proceeding them. In a case where permission to terminate the tenancy is sought on the ground that the tenant has purchased a house it will further have to be shown that the tenant does not reasonably need the house which he has taken on rent. In the instant case, the learned Resident Deputy Collector has observed as follows :
'However, at this stage, we are not deciding the case of sub-tenancy but the fact remains that these respondent Nos. 2 to 5 occupied the suit premises for a period of ten months and they were not related to the respondent No. 1. Evidently the premises of the suit house which were in occupation of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were not needed by the respondent No. 1 Sardarsingh for his residents.'
9. No doubt, the learned Resident Deputy Collector has not in terms stated the word 'reasonably needed'. What he has stated is that evidently, the premises of the suit house which were in occupation of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were not needed by the respondent No. 1 Sardarsingh for his residence. It may be either through over sight that he omitted to mention the words 'reasonably'. But it is clear from the contents and substance of the order that the Resident Deputy Collector was satisfied that the present petitioner Sardarsingh did not need the premises for any reason whatsoever. If fact, in the subsequent sub-para, the Resident Deputy Collector observed as follows :
'In view of the above facts, it is absolutely convincing that the respondent No. 1 Sardarsingh has secured alternative accommodation for his residence as stated by the landlord in his application, and is now trying to carry over his possession in the suit house with the ulterior motive. Since he has already secured accommodation by getting his own premises vacated from the tenant Gautam Motiram, the respondent Sardarsingh is not entitled to stay over on the suit accommodation under the pretext. His occupation mala fide and be deserved to be evicted'.
10. Thus, the learned Resident Deputy Collector having applied his mind to the facts and evidence on record has categorically come to the conclusion that the petitioner Sardarsingh was not entitled to stay over on the suit premises under any pretext. In short, it has come to the conclusion that Sardarsingh the petitioner does not 'reasonably' need the premises. In a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution if the finding of fact arrived at by the lower Appellate Court is a reasonable finding on the basis of the evidence and material on record, this Court would not substitute the said finding merely because another reasonable view of the same set of facts is also possible. At any rate, there is no perversity or illegality in the said order and I do not feel that it would be a fit or proper case to interfere with the said finding of fact. In the circumstances, there is no substance in this petition and the same will have to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
11. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.