ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kothari, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Najbile, learned counsel for respondents No. 2(a) to 2(h). 2. Today this Court has already disposed of Writ Petition No. 1556 of 1997 by partly allowing it. These two writ petitions are again between the same parties. The landlord filed two separate proceedings and sought permission to terminate tenancy of petitioner-tenant on the ground that the petitioner-tenant has secured alternate accommodation and has committed acts of nuisance. On 28-11994, by common order the Rent Controller rejected both his applications. The respondent-landlord thereafter filed two appeals before the appellate authority under Clause 21 of C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order) and these two appeals have been decided by common order on 13-12-1996 by the appellate authority. The appellate authority has granted permission only under clause 13(3)(v) of Rent Control Order to the respondent-landlord by holding that the petitioner has secured alternate accommodation. 3. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned appellate authority has erroneously held that the petitioner has secured alternate accommodation. He has taken the Court through the judgment of the appellate Court for that purpose and has tried to demonstrate that the finding recorded is that the major sons of the petitioner-tenant have secured their own houses and are staying separately and doing their own business. He contends that separate business or separate houses by the major sons cannot be treated as alternate accommodation by present petitioner and therefore the permission granted under clause 13(3)(v) of Rent Control Order is unsustainable. 4. Shri Najbile, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord on the other hand states that the relevant revenue record entries have been produced before the appellate authority to prove that the petitioner has secured alternate accommodation. He further argues that though the finding recorded is in relation to two sons of the petitioner, the petitioner i.e. original tenant-Shankarrao has already expired and as such his need is now not in existence. He contends that in view of the facts mentioned above, permission as granted by the appellate authority needs to be maintained. 5. He further argues that though the finding recorded is in relation to two sons of the petitioner, the petitioner i.e. original tenant-Shankarrao has already expired and as such his need is now not in existence. He contends that in view of the facts mentioned above, permission as granted by the appellate authority needs to be maintained. 5. In reply, Shri Patil, learned counsel states that though the original petitioner-tenant has expired, his widow is very much there and he further states that the business is being managed by petitioner No. 2 i.e. the legal heir of deceased Shankarrao. In these circumstances, according to him, the impugned order of appellate authority cannot be sustained. 6. The clause 13(3)(v) of Rent Control Order permits the respondent landlord to seek permission to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant if the tenant has secured alternate accommodation. It is, therefore, apparent that the alternate accommodation must be shown to have been secured by the tenant. In this case, the original tenant against whom the proceedings were filed is Shankarrao. It is, therefore, obligatory for the respondent-landlord to show that Shankarrao has secured accommodation. There is no finding recorded by the appellate authority in this respect at all. The appellate authority has found that his two sons viz., Gopal and Vijay have purchased plot with the building thereon and. are residing separately from Shankarrao and are doing their own business in this premises. It is, therefore, apparent that when major sons are residing separately from their father, it cannot be said that the father has secured alternate remedy so as to attract the ingredients of clause 13(3)(v) of Rent Control Order. The non application of mind by the appellate authority is apparent. 7. Though Shri Najbile, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has tried to contend that after the death of Shankarrao, the findings of appellate authority hold good. I find that these are subsequent events and if the respondent landlord has got any grievance against the occupation of premises by the heirs of Shankarrao, he has to file separate proceedings and the heirs of Shankarrao need to be given opportunity to meet the case. 8. In these circumstances, the common order dated 13-12-1996 passed by the appellate authority in Appeals No. BRA/Khamgaon/46/93-94 and Appeal No. BRA/Khamgaon/49/93-94 is quashed and set aside. Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in above terms. 8. In these circumstances, the common order dated 13-12-1996 passed by the appellate authority in Appeals No. BRA/Khamgaon/46/93-94 and Appeal No. BRA/Khamgaon/49/93-94 is quashed and set aside. Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.