KANTA UDHARAM JAGASIA Vs. C K S RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-landlady, who was successful before the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Bombay, in getting an order of eviction against the respondent-tenant but failed before the High Court, has filed this appeal by special leave challenging the reversing decision of the High Court.

(2.) THE appellant claiming to be the owner of Flat No. 3 situated on the ground floor of building bearing Plot No. 42, the Sindhi Immigrants Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Chembur Road, Bombay, preferred an application under Section 13A1(i)A(ii) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act') seeking eviction of the tenant (respondent herein) from the said premises. According to the appellant, the plot bearing No. 42 was initially allotted in favour of her mother, Smt. Navabai wife of Udharam by the Housing Society. Later on, Moti Ram brother of the appellant, was accepted as a member of the Housing Society in place of Smt. Navabai. Still later i.e. some time in November, 1960, the appellant's father Udharam became a member in place of Motiram. THE said Motiram constructed the present building consisting of ground, first and second floors in Plot bearing No. 42. On 11-9-69, Udharam died leaving behind three sons and three daughters including the appellant. On 23-9-69, a Deed of Declaration was executed among the legal heirs of the deceased Udharam whereunder the appellant and one of her brothers, Hiranand were allotted the ground floor. THE ground floor itself consisted of four flats. THE Housing Society by its Resolution dated 24-9-69 accepted the inter se arrangement as mentioned above. Again on 31-1-88, on being informed, the Housing Society accepted the arrangement reached between the appellant and her brother, Hiranand, whereunder Flat Nos. 1 and 2 of the ground floor were allotted to Hiranand and Flat Nos. 3 and 4 fell to the share of the appellant. Of the four flats on the ground floor at the relevant time, Flat Nos. 2 to 4 were in possession of tenants. THE respondent was a tenant in Flat No. 3. THE appellant was residing along with the family of her brother in Flat No. 1.

(3.) BEFORE the Competent Authority, the appellant, besides examining herself, has examined the Assistant Personnel Officer of the BARC to prove the Certificate dated 2-7-88. She also examined the Manager of the Housing Society to support her claim that Flat Nos. 3 and 4 were ultimately allotted to her share under the arrangement between the appellant and her brother. She also examined her Aunt, an old lady of 64 years, to prove that the appellant was not able to get on with her brother's family consisting of her brother, sister-in-law and two college going children and the relationship between the appellant and her sister-in-law was strained.