A 1 ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. RAJENDRA KASTURCHAND VORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be disposed of by a common judgment as the same arise out of the same suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been hereinafter referred to with reference to their status before the trial Court. A suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiffs under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1947). The suit relates to a shop premises admeasuring 23 ft X 17 ft in an Industrial Estate on Plot No. 427/46 at Gultekdi, Pune. The defendants are the tenants who are the partners of the firm M/s. A-1 Engineering Works. The allegation in the suit is that the defendants have made a permanent cabin for their office in the suit premises without consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs. Another allegation made in the plaint is that there is an open space in front of the suit premises in which the defendants are illegally and unauthorisedly storing goods thereby obstructing the plaintiffs and their customers while approaching the office of the plaintiffs. It is alleged that by demolishing two pillars of the compound gate, damage has been caused by the defendants to the plaintiffs' property. It is alleged that the defendants have constructed a cabin for their office in the suit premises. The suit was filed on the ground that the defendants have carried out permanent construction. Another ground pleaded was of bona fide requirement on the ground that the plaintiffs are not possessing, sufficient premises and though they have purchased a new machinery, the same was required to be kept in a temporary shed. It was alleged that the plaintiffs are unable to install the machinery due to lack of availability of the premises. The third ground for eviction is causing nuisance and annoyance.

(2.) The defendants contested the suit. The defendants contended that the claim of bona fide requirement was not genuine. It was pointed out that the plaintiffs have foundry premises on which two floors have been constructed. It is alleged that by accepting high rent, the plaintiffs have let out the said new floors. Even second floor above the suit property has been let out. The defendants stated that only one wooden cabin is made in the suit premises and its channels and angles are not embedded into any of the walls of the suit premises. It is contended that the said office cabin was made with the consent of the plaintiffs. The suit was dismissed by holding all issues against the plaintiffs. An appeal was preferred by the defendants against the decree.

(3.) The plaint was amended during the pendency of the appeal. It was pointed out that further changes of permanent nature were made in the suit premises in April/ May 1987. It was pointed out that the wooden cabin was shifted on the mezzanine floor which was erected by the defendants by using mild steel channels and angles rested on T. beams. It is alleged that wooden cabin was completely shifted from the ground floor to the mezzanine floor. It was alleged that the same was resting on channels and angles. It is alleged that I Beams are fixed in concrete foundation. It is alleged that the aforesaid channels/angles are embedded in walls in concrete. It was further alleged that a spiral staircase has been made for entering the cabin. It is stated that all these additions are of permanent nature. It was alleged that the defendants have increased the area of cabin. It is alleged that all these changes have been effected without the consent of the plaintiffs. It is further alleged that the changes cannot be removed easily and if any attempt is made to remove the same, the building is likely to get damaged. In the amended plaint, the plaintiffs contended that they were in possession of rented premises bearing House Nos. 358 359 and 360 in Shukrawar peth Pune. It was stated that in the said premises totally admeasuring 146.3 square meters, the plaintiffs had started their business by installing six lathe machines, three drilling machines and three vending machines. It is alleged that about 15 to 16 persons are employed in the factory of the plaintiffs. It is pointed out that a suit for eviction was filed by the landlords in respect of the said premises again the plaintiffs. A writ petition arising out of the suit for eviction filed by the landlords against the plaintiffs was pending in this Court wherein the plaintiffs have challenged the decree of eviction. The additional written statement was filed by the defendants. It was contended that the defendants have merely made a platform of temporary nature on the eastern side of suit premises with the help of mild steel channels and angles. It is alleged that the said channels and angles are not embedded into any of the walls of the suit premises. The defendants contended that the platform can be easily removed without causing any damage to the suit property or the suit premises or any part thereof. It is contended that the changes are of temporary nature. The defendants denied that the suit premises was required by the plaintiffs for bone fide use.