VISHWASRAO DADASAHEB Vs. SHANKARRAO D KALYANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is in appeal before us. It is not disputed that on 9-4-1970 the respondent-tenant purchased the premises, namely, C.T.S. No. 2005/1-2A situated in E. Ward of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. Immediately on purchase of the said premises, the respondent-tenant filed a suit for eviction of his tenant. The said suit was decreed. An appeal against the decree was dismissed by the appellate Court. While these proceedings were going on the present appellant filed a suit for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the grounds of his bona fide need, default in payment of rent and the tenant having acquired an alternative vacant premises. While the appellant suit was pending the respondent-tenant was delivered possession of his acquired house. The IInd Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. Division decreed the suit of the appellant on the grounds that the respondent-tenant was a defaulter and that the respondent-tenant has acquired another suitable vacant accommodation. The respondent-tenant filed an appeal in the Court of IInd Addl. District Judge, Kolhapur. The Second Additional District Judge, reversed the finding of the trial Court relating to the ground of default, holding that the tenant was not defaulter. However, the appellate Court maintained the decree for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of acquisition of an alternative suitable vacant accommodation by him. The respondent-tenant thereafter challenged the appellate order before the High Court of Bombay by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held that since the tenant had not obtained possession of the premises purchased by him on the date of the filing of the suit by the appellant landlord no decree of eviction could have been passed against the tenant. Consequently the writ petition was allowed. It is against the said judgment the appellant is in appeal.

(2.) It is almost settled law that it is open to a Court to take into consideration any subsequent event while dealing with the matters relating to relationship of landlord and tenant governed by law enacted in that regard for passing the appropriate orders. It is not disputed by the respondent tenant that he took possession of accommodation acquired by him during the pendency of the suit filed by the appellant-landlord and therefore in law the respondent-tenant had acquired vacant accommodation and thus made himself liable to be evicted from the premises. In our opinion the High Court fell in error in interfering with the judgments and orders passed by the two Courts below. Consequently, the judgment under appeal is set aside. The Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(3.) After the judgment was dictated, learned counsel appearing for the tenant respondent stated that the respondent-tenant is about 70 years old and in case he is required to vacate the premises in question immediately, he would be put to great hardship and for that reason the tenant may be granted some time to vacate the premises. Learned counsel for the landlords has no objection.