LAWS(GJH)-1995-7-38

B D SAHASHTRABUDHE Vs. MADHUSUDDAN MAHADEV DEV

Decided On July 24, 1995
B D Sahashtrabudhe Appellant
V/S
Madhusuddan Mahadev Dev Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opponent is the original plaintiff-landlord who had filed the suit in the Court of Small Cause Judge, at Baroda, against the present petitioners who are the original defendants' heirs of the deceased tenant for the recovery of possession of the demised premises and also for the mesne profit which came to be decreed. The appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction came to be dismissed. Hence, this revision application under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act for short).

(2.) The small question which is required to be adjudicated upon in this revision is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to retain the possession of the demised premises under Sec. 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act. The deceased Bhaskerrao Damodar Sahastrabuddhe was a monthly tenant in respect of one room on the ground floor situated in Shiyapura bearing Census No. RA 2/143, near Raopura, in Baroda at monthly rent of Rs. 11.42 P. who died on 19-4-1977 without any issue. Therefore, the plaintiff filed Rent Suit No. 365 of 1977 for recovery of the demised premises from the defendants who are claiming to be legal heirs and representatives of the deceased tenant. The plaintiff inter alia contended that the defendants are not entitled to use and occupation of the demised premises upon the death of the original tenant as he died without leaving heirs and none was staying at the relevant time with the deceased. According to the case of the plaintiff the defendants were residing separately who had taken over the possession upon the death of the deceased tenant. The case of the plaintiff in short is that the defendants are not entitled to use and occupation of the demised premises as they are not covered under Sec. 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement Exh. 10 and contested the claim of the plaintiff. They claimed tenancy right. They contended they were living separately on account of big family.