MAHENDRA Vs. PADMAKAR JAGANNATH DONGARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals by special leave by a tenant who has been evicted on a the grounds of arrears of rent. They arise in an unusual circumstances.

(2.) The appellants were tenants of M/s M. D. Cycle Industries Private limited of premises situated at the Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar village, Hadapsar, Pune. The area that each of the appellants occupied and the rent that each of the appellants was required to pay was different; for the rest, the facts of both appeals are similar and may be stated in relation to Appeal No. 473 of 1985.

(3.) The landlord, a private limited company, had obtained loans from the state Bank of India upon the pledge and hypothecation of moveable property. The Bank filed a suit against the landlord (being Special Suit No. 392 of 1972 in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune for a decree of rs 3,21,303.75 and for sale of the pledged and hypothecated goods described in the schedule to the plaint. No immovable property was alleged to have been mortgaged or charged and no order in that behalf was prayed for. On 7/11/1973, the Bank made an application in the suit for appointment of a Receiver of the moveable and immovable properties, mentioned in the schedule to the application. The immovable property included the property in which the premises let to the appellants were situated. The application was made on the ground that it was likely that the private limited company would, with a view to defeat or to delay the Bank's claim, dispose of its properties. The court of the civil Judge gave to the private limited company an opportunity to furnish an undertaking and security and, on its failure to do so, appointed the respondent to the appeals before us (P. J. Dongare) Receiver of the moveable and immovable property mentioned in the schedule to the application. On 30/3/1976, the court of the Civil Judge decreed the suit of the Bank. It held that a charge for the amount was created on the articles described in the schedule to the plaint which, as aforesaid, did not include the immovable property in which the premises let to the appellants were situated. The respondent, as Receiver appointed as aforesaid, filed a suit against appellants on 13/1/1977 seeking their eviction from the premises let to them on the ground that they were in arrears of rent. That suit was decreed on 26/11/1982 and the appeal filed by the appellants therefrom was dismissed on 9/10/1984.