SATISHKUMAR KANTILAL DOSHI Vs. TARABAI ANANT NIMBKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE cross petitions can be disposed of by a common Judgment as both the petitions arise out of a same suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to with reference to their status before the trial Court.

(2.) THE suit relates to the suit premises admeasuring 46.18 sq. meters in house no.37, Ward no.3 within the municipal limits of Baramati. The suit premises consists of two rooms having 3 khans each and also a tin shed annexed to the western room. According to the case of the plaintiffs, their predecessor had let out the suit premises to Dr. Balkrishna Nimkar the father of the original defendant. It is alleged that the suit premises were let out for conducting the medical practice. It is alleged that after demise of the original tenant-Dr.Balkrishna, the original defendant continued medical practice in the suit premises. For a period of more than one year prior to institution of the suit, he stopped practicing. The allegation is that the original defendant used to let out the suit premises to hawkers for keeping their goods. The allegation is that there was a change of user and suit premises is being used for sale and repairs of TVS manufactured Mopeds. The allegation is that there is a construction of permanent nature made by the defendant in the suit premises. Bona fide need of the plaintiffs is pleaded on the ground that they have started production of electrical bulbs in industrial estate at Baramati and they need the suit premises for selling the said products manufactured by them. The suit was contested by the legal representatives of the defendant on various grounds. The trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of change of user and negatived all other grounds. An appeal was preferred by the defendant. In the said appeal cross objection was filed by the plaintiffs. Both the appeal and cross objection was dismissed by the District Court. Writ Petition No.2538 of 1995 has been preferred by the legal representatives of the original tenant-defendant. Writ Petition no.3387 of 1996 has been filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions. The specific case made out in the plaint is that the suit premises was let out to the father of the defendant for the purpose of carrying on medical practice. It is alleged that for a period of one year prior to the institution of the suit, the use of the suit premises as a dispensary was stopped and thereafter, the defendant started a show room for sale of TVS Mopeds as well as for sale of spare parts of the Moped. As far as the change of user is concerned, the stand taken in the written statement is that the premises was taken for business and for residence. There is a bald denial of the allegation that the show room of Mopeds has been started. Thus, the stand taken is that the premises was not let out for the medical practice but for the purpose of business and residence. Under section 6(1) of the said Act, the provisions of the said Act are applicable to the premises let out for various purposes such as residence, trade, business, storage etc.