BAITULLA ISMAIL SHAIKH Vs. KHATIJA ISMAIL PANHALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants before us are landlords and they assail a judgment delivered by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court on 4/8/2015 exercising his revisional jurisdiction invalidating eviction decrees against two tenants in respect of two portions of the same building. The building in question carries House No.86 as per the municipal records, comprised in C.S. No. 111/b as per city survey records, located at Dr. Sobane Road in Mahabaleshwar, District-Satara within the State of Maharashtra. The Civil Appeal No. 1543 of 2016 arises out of Civil Suit No. 136 of 2010 and the tenant/defendant in that suit is one Khatija Ismail Panhalkar. In this suit, two of his sons have also been impleaded as defendants. The premises involved in these proceedings comprise of two blocks within the aforesaid building. One block comprises of 10'× 4' structure made of 'ita and tin shed'. Civil Appeal No. 1544 of 2016 arises out of Civil Suit No. 137 of 2010 and the tenant whose eviction is sought for in this suit is one Vasant Mahadeo Gujar (since deceased). Before us, his legal representatives have contested the appeal. The property from which the appellants want them to be evicted comprises of two rooms comprising of an area of 10'×12', which appears to be located in the middle of the said building. The two rooms, at the material point of time, were being used for residential purpose. The appellants purchased the subject-premises in the year 1992 from its erstwhile owner. Both the tenants were inducted by the erstwhile owner of the building in question.

(2.) On 23/1/2002, a demolition notice was issued by the Mahabaleshwar Giristhan Municipal Council for a part of the subject-building. This notice constituted one of the grounds on which the appellants wanted to evict the respondents under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ("the 1999 Act"). This notice was followed by three subsequent notices by the said Municipal Council on 3/12/2005, 13/7/2009 and 5/7/2010, almost on similar terms. The suit, however, was founded on, inter-alia, the notice dtd. 23/1/2002. This notice is of relevance so far as these appeals are concerned and we quote below the text thereof:-

(3.) Notices for eviction were subsequently sent to the tenants in each appeal and both these notices are dtd. 4/2/2002. So far as the notice to the respondents in Civil Appeal No. 1543 of 2016 is concerned, the delivery of vacant possession was asked for on five main grounds. The first one was default in payment of rent. The next ground was erection of a permanent structure by the tenant without permission of the landlord. The third point was subletting and it was also stated in that notice that the landlords had decided to construct a building thereon for residential purpose as also for operating a hotel. Under Sec. 16(1)(i) of the 1999 Act, the erection of a new building could come within "reasonable and bona fide" requirement of landlord, subject to satisfaction of certain other stipulated conditions. The municipality's demolition notice was also cited as a ground for eviction. We shall reproduce provisions of Ss. 15 and 16 of the said enactment in subsequent paragraphs of this judgment. In the eviction notice to the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1544 of 2016, the grounds cited were, inter-alia, issue of the demolition notice by the municipality, default in payment of rent and also necessity of the tenanted portion for construction of a new building upon demolishing the structures on the land.