SHRINIWAS R SHELAR Vs. GIRISH KANAYALAL OSWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contempt petition is filed by the tenant and civil application is filed by the landlord. [for the sake of convenience the parties herein after referred to as the landlord and the tenant]. Following is the background of the contempt petition and the civil application.

(2.) THE landlord had filed a Regular Civil Suit No.236 of 1991 against the tenant before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Ratnagiri for recovering possession of the suit premises under section 13 (1) (hh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act). The landlord succeeded in the suit and got a decree, The tenant preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Ratnagiri, but the tenant's appeal was also dismissed by the District Judge, Ratnagiri by an order dated 4.12.1995. The tenant then filed a writ petition No. 482 of 1996 against the landlord and against two consecutive orders passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ratnagiri and the District Judge passed against him.

(3.) ACCORDING to the tenant, thereafter he wrote number of letters to the landlord to put the tenant in possession of newly constructed suit premises. i.e. an area approximately 10ft. x 20ft. in the newly constructed building. The landlord in spite of 3/4 notices did not reply. Hence the tenant filed the contempt petition praying therein for action against the landlord under Article 215 of the Constitution and sending him to civil Prison etc. The contempt petition of the tenant came up before Justice H.L.Gokhale on 19.8.1999 wherein the tenant's advocate read deposition of Girish Oswal at Exhibit 56 in Suit No. 236 of 1991 wherein Girish Oswal i.e. the landlord admitted that he has filed undertaking and he will abide by the provisions of Law; that the alternative premises has been properly shown in the map Exhibit 54 and the proposed premises is having height of 14 feet. Mr.Rege appearing for the landlord stated at that time before Justice H.L.Gokhale that if such alternate premises are kept vacant, they will remain vacant until the matter is further heard.