YUVRAJ @ MUNNA PRALHAD JAGDALE Vs. JANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil appeals arise out of the judgment dtd. 3/12/2008 of the Bombay High Court, allowing Writ Petition No. 1067 of 1992, and its later judgment dtd. 9/9/2009, dismissing Review Petition No. 75 of 2009 in W.P No. 1067 of 1992, respectively. In turn, W.P No. 1067 of 1992 filed by Janardhan Subajirao Wide, the respondent herein, arose out of the judgment dtd. 21/12/1991 of the learned 13th Additional District Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No. 1030 of 1987, confirming the judgment dtd. 30/9/1987 of the learned II Additional S.C. Judge, Pune, in C.S. No. 386 of 1985.

(2.) C.S. No. 386 of 1985 was filed by late Ramachandra Maruti Jagadale, plaintiff No.2, and his wife, late Sou. Rangubai Jagadale, plaintiff No.1, the predecessorsintitle of the appellants herein, for recovery of possession of the leased premises bearing C.T.S No. 1873 at Bhamburda, Pune, from the tenant, Janardhan Subajirao Wide. By judgment dtd. 30/9/1987, the Trial Court decreed their suit, holding them entitled to claim eviction of the tenant under Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1947'). Two months' time was granted to the tenant to vacate the premises. This judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the learned 13th Additional District Judge, Pune, vide judgment dtd. 21/12/1991.

(3.) It is against these judgments that the tenant, viz., the respondent herein, filed W.P. No. 1067 of 1992 before the Bombay High Court. By its judgment dtd. 3/12/2008, the High Court opined that a case of subtenancy was not made out, warranting eviction of the tenant on that ground, and quashed the decree of eviction/ possession. In consequence, C.S. No. 386 of 1985 was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs, who were on record in the writ petition, filed Review Petition No. 75 of 2009. However, by its judgment dtd. 9/9/2009, the High Court reiterated its finding that the tenant had never parted with possession of the leased premises and had never left the premises, being a partner. Holding so, the High Court concluded that there was no error on the face of the record and dismissed the review petition. Presently, these two judgments are under appeal.