VINAYAK TRIMBAK WALE Vs. TARACHAND HIRALAL SHET MARWADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application filed by the tenant against a decree passed by the Court of the Assistant Judge of East Khandesh at Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No. 395 of 1956 directing him to vacate the suit premises, of which he is a monthly tenant. The petitioner is a dentist and he has been in possession of the southern portion of the ground floor of Municipal House No. 299 in Baliram Peth, Jalgaon, in C. S. No. 2184/8, since 1939. The promises are being occupied by him partly for his residence and partly for his dispensary and the rent payable for the block is Rs. 27 per month plus permitted increases. The opponent, who is a resident of the village of Zurkheda in Taluka Erandol, purchased this house on. August 30, 1949. On July 2, 1955, the opponent gave a notice to the petitioner terminating the petitioner's lease by the end of July 1955 on the ground that he required the promises in the occupation of the petitioner bona fide for his own occupation because he wanted to shift from Zurkhada to Jalgaon as dacoities were taking place in nearby villages and that his only son as well as his wife required medical treatment, and his daughter was to be educated and, therefore, it was necessary for him to shift to Jalgaon. As that notice was not complied with, the opponent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 421 of 1955 in the Court of the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon, on September 5, 1955, to recover possession of the suit premises and an amount of Fti3. 160 for arrears of rent as well as future mesne profits and costs.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the petitioner on several grounds. It was alleged that though the rent of the premises was Rs. 27, after the purchase of the suit building by the opponent from the former owner Jaikisan Ramvilas, the opponent used to recover Rs. 40 from the petitioner and ultimately in 1955 Rs. 60 were recovered. The petitioner denied that the plaintiff required the suit premises for his personal use and occupation. Ho also urged that some blocks in the building had fallen vacant, but plaintiff gave them to others at increased rent, and, therefore, the plaintiff's claim was not bona fide and reasonable.

(3.) AGAINST this decree, the. opponent filed Civil Appeal No. 395 of 1956 in the Court of.the District Judge, East Khandesh, at Jalgaon, and the learned Assistant Judge, who heard the appeal allowed the same, holding that the plaintiff required the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for his own use and occupation. The lower appellate Court, therefore, directed the defendant -petitioner to hand over possession to the plaintiff by the end of September 1958 and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 150 on account of arrears of rent and permitted increases and directed an inquiry into future mesne profits under Order XX, Rule 12(1)(c), of the Civil Procedure Code. It is against this decree that the present revision application has been filed.