RADHABAI KRISHNANAND VERNEKAR Vs. GOURAWWABAI SHARNAPPA BUKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the landlady challenging concurrent decisions of the two courts below in dismissing the Regular Civil Suit No. 1313 of 1976 instituted by her before the Court of Joint Civil Judge, J. D. , Solapur. The trial Court by its judgment and order dated 30-1-1982 was pleased to dismiss the said suit, which order came to be confirmed by the Appellate Court, III Additional District Judge, Solapur on 23-4-1987 in Civil Appeal No. 250 of 1982.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed suit for recovery of possession of the suit property consisting of two room and one shop along with osri situated in Municipal House No. 139 of C. T. S. No. 3930 A, B, C Shukrwar Peth, Solapur on the ground floor as described in the para 1 of the plaint. Although possession of the suit property was claimed on more than one ground under the Bombay Rent Act, however, before this Court, in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has confined the ground of sub-letting only. In the circumstances it would not be necessary to burden this judgment with the other issues.

(3.) IN so far as the ground of sub-letting is concerned, the averments in the plaint, particularly in para 6 thereof, would indicate description of the suit property and the fact that the same was originally let out to one deceased Sharanppa for residence only on monthly rent. It is stated that after the demise of the said original tenant Sharnappa, defendants 1 to 4 viz. respondent 1 to 4 herein, being the heirs and legal representatives of the original tenant, were occupying the said premises till filing of the suit. It is further stated that defendants 1 to 4 secured alternate accommodation elsewhere and they shifted their residence in the newly acquired premises. It is further stated that the said defendants after vacating the two rooms on the western side allowed to remain vacant unused and inducted defendant No. 5 as sub-tenant in one room on the southern side and allowed the same to be unauthorizedly used by defendant No. 5 and collected rent from the said defendant. It is further asserted that defendants 1 to 4 collected huge rent from the said defendant No. 5 for one room unauthorisedly sub-let to defendant No. 5 and thus indulged in profiteering. In the same para it is further asserted that the remaining one room was used by defendants 1 to 4 for storing goods as godown instead of using the same for residence on account of which the premises have been damaged. With this allegation the petitioner proceeded with the suit against the defendants.