JUDGMENT - PURANIK S.W., J.: - By this petition, the landlord seeks to challenge the order of the Resident Deputy Collector, passed on 16-12-1977 allowing the application of the respondents-tenants, filed before the Rent Controller under clause 13(4) of the Rent Control Order. Brief facts relevant for the purpose may be narrated as follows: 2. The petitioner is the owner of House No. 241 in Ward No. 12 at Yeotmal. The premises were let out to the respondents for business purpose. The suit house consists only of one room on the ground floor and one room with a balcony on the first floor. The petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking permission to terminate the tenancy of the respondents under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. At the initial stage, the Rent Controller rejected the application on 4-5-1964. The petitioner thereafter preferred appeal and the same was allowed by the Resident Deputy Collector by his order dated 20-3-1965. The petitioner having secured the permission, terminated the tenancy of the respondents and filed a Civil Suit for ejectment of the respondents vide Civil Suit No. 88/65. In the mean time, the tenant's petition before the High Court challenging the granting of permission came to be dismissed. The petitioner's suit for ejectment was decreed and the respondents-tenants' attempts to reverse the decree proved futile, their First and Second Appeals having been dismissed by the Court. Ultimately, the petitioner secured possession of the suit premises on 22-6-1972. 3. It must be borne in mind that the petitioner under sub-clause (4) of Clause 13 of the Rent Control Order was bound to occupy the premises for his bona fide residence within one month, inasmuch as that was the purpose for which the tenancy of the respondent was terminated. 4. It is the case of the respondents that thereafter, almost for a period of 1½ years, the petitioner landlord kept the premises under his lock and key, but did not use them for his personal residence. For this purpose, the respondents filed Civil Suit No. 60/74 seeking injunction against the landlord not to demolish the suit structure. The tenant also secured ad interim injunction. Thereafter, the suit was decreed on 29-7-1975, the landlord having remained absent and having been proceeded ex parte. For this purpose, the respondents filed Civil Suit No. 60/74 seeking injunction against the landlord not to demolish the suit structure. The tenant also secured ad interim injunction. Thereafter, the suit was decreed on 29-7-1975, the landlord having remained absent and having been proceeded ex parte. Simultaneously with the filing of the suit for injunction, the respondents also approached the Rent Control Authority under Clause 13(4) of the Rent control Order, demanding restoration of possession of the suit premises for breach of the condition of sub-clause (4) of Clause 13 of the Rent Control Order. The respondents' application came to be rejected by the Rent Controller on 15-4-1976. The Rent Controller held that from the evidence adduced by both the parties, he was satisfied that the landlord had in fact stayed in the suit premises for a period of 15 days, and thereafter because of financial stringency, he could not carry out certain essential modifications to add a bath room and latrine to the suit house and hence there was a good cause shown by the landlord in not having used the premises for bona fide residence. 5. This order was again challenged by the tenants respondents in appeal and the said appeal was allowed by the Resident Deputy Collector by his order dated 16-12-1977. By allowing the said order, the Appellate Court directed the petitioner landlord to restore the possession of the suit house to the respondents. It is against this order that the present petition is preferred. It appears that in the mean time, before the interim stay of this Court could be communicated, the possession of the premises was restored to the respondents. 6. Mr. Manohar for the petitioner contended that the Rent Controller was right in appreciating the evidence and coming to the conclusion that in fact the landlord had occupied the premises within one month of taking possession, but for good cause and financial stringency the petitioner could not personally used the premises for residence. He also contended that because of the injunction order issued against him at the instance of the respondents, he could not carry out the essential modifications. He also contended that because of the injunction order issued against him at the instance of the respondents, he could not carry out the essential modifications. Shri Kherdekar on the other hand supported the impugned order and pointed out that there was no material to show that the petitioner in fact occupied the premises within one month or that he was undergoing financial difficulties to complete the modifications and additions of bath room and latrine to the suit house. 7. With the assistance of the Counsel of both the parties, I have gone through the evidence recorded before the trial Court as well as the impugned orders. 8. The deposition of the landlord in trying to show good cause for not using the premises for bona fide occupation shows that he has not made any serious attempt at corroborating his averment that he was in financial difficulties. Admittedly, he was an Income Tax payer till 1971 and he was made an oral statement that from 1972 onwards, he has not paid Income Tax. It was necessary for the petitioner to file No-Income Certificate for the year 1972 which would have substantially corroborated his oral say. He has also not taken care to establish the financial difficulty by producing his account books. 9. His deposition further shows an admission to the effect that on securing possession, through Court on 22-6-1972, he went to the premises and occupied it after one month. He is also unable to state the correct date of his occupation. If that admission is read in conjunction with clause 13(4) of the Rent control Order, it is more than obvious that the petitioner landlord had contravened the condition stipulated therein and was duty bound to restore the possession to the respondents-tenants. 10. Lastly, the say of the petitioner that it was because of the injunction obtained by the tenant against him he could not carry out the modifications is also ill-founded. The injunction was merely to restrain the petitioner landlord not to demolish the suit block. It did not in any way restrain him from adding a bath room and latrine. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner did not for any good cause occupy the premises himself for the purpose for which it was vacated within one month from the date of obtaining possession i.e. from 22-6-1972. 11. It did not in any way restrain him from adding a bath room and latrine. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner did not for any good cause occupy the premises himself for the purpose for which it was vacated within one month from the date of obtaining possession i.e. from 22-6-1972. 11. Clause 13(4) of the Rent Control Order reads as under: - “Where the landlord who has obtained possession of a house or a portion thereof in pursuance of the permission granted by the Controller under sub-clause (1) on the ground specified in Item (vi) of sub-clause (3) does not himself occupy it without good cause, for the purpose specified in such ground, within one month of the date of obtaining possession, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored possession of the house or a portion thereof and the Controller shall make an order accordingly.” Thus a plain reading shows that on securing permission on the ground of need of bona fide occupation the landlord has to follow the stipulation laid down in the above clause, in that, the landlord is required to occupy the suit block for the purpose specified in Clause 13(3)(vi) within one month from the date of obtaining possession. Failure to do so without good cause entitles the tenant for restoration of possession. 12. These conditions are stipulated under Rent Control Order to protect the interest of the tenants who have to be necessarily ejected only on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. No such restoration is possible in cases where the tenant commits defaults in payment of arrears or makes himself liable for ejectment on the ground of nuisance or waste. It is only in cases of eviction on the ground of bona fide need for the landlord or for purposes of essential repairs that immediately thereafter landlord does not occupy the premises for bona fide need or carries out and completes the essential repairs. Sub-clause (4) of Clause 13, therefore, has to be necessarily construed strictly against the landlord and liberally in favour of the tenant who has been ejected on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. Sub-clause (4) of Clause 13, therefore, has to be necessarily construed strictly against the landlord and liberally in favour of the tenant who has been ejected on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. Moreover, the phraseology in Clause 13(4) “himself occupy for the purpose specified in such ground within one month from the date of obtaining possession”, clearly indicates the intention of the Legislature to distinguish mere formal possession under lock and key from occupying himself for the purpose for which it is got vacated. In the instant case, the tenant respondent waited for a period of 1½ years for the petitioner landlord to show his bona fides in occupying himself the premises for residence and it is thereafter he moved the Rent Controller for restoration of possession. The Appellate Court rightly held that the petitioner landlord had breached the stipulation of Clause 13(4) and was liable to restore possession to the tenant. In these circumstances and facts prevailing in this case, the order impugned needs no interference. Petition therefore, stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----