PIADAD FERNANDER Vs. K M RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a group of five Special Civil Applications by the defendants-tenants whose eviction has been ordered by the courts below under Section 13 (1) (hhh) of the Bombay Rent Act from the suit premises. The five suits were heard together as common questions of law and fact were involved and for the very reason this judgment will dispose of all these five applications.

(2.) THE plaintiffs are owners of a property situate at 35, 3rd Marine Lines, Dhobi Talao, Bombay and portions of that property are occupied by the defendants as tenants. On 21-7-1958 the plaintiffs received a notice from the Municipal Corporation under requiring the plaintiffs to pull down the structure on the ground that it was in a dangerous condition. On receipt of this notice the plaintiffs initiated proceedings under Section 507 of the Municipal Corporation Act and the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay passed an order in their favour on 29-1-1959 granting time to the defendants to vacate the premises on or before 30-9-1959. On 7-4-1961 the plaintiffs gave a notice terminating the defendants' tenancy on the ground that they wanted vacant possession for carrying out the order of the Municipal Corporation regarding the demolition of the building. On 1-8-1961 the Municipal authorities decided to act departmentally and demolish the structures in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 488 of the Municipal Corporation Act. On 18-9-1961 the defendants made representations against the proposed action and the Municipal authorities on a certain undertaking given by the defendants to the Commissioner stopped the demolition work and the labour charges Incurred by the municipal authorities amounting to Rs. 55/- were recovered from the defendants. Pursuant to their Undertaking the defendants completed the repair work within six weeks and by a letter dated 12-1-1962 informed the Municipal Commissioner accordingly. After the quit notice dated 1-8-1961 the plaintiffs filed the five suits on 23-12-1961 against the defendants claiming reliefs under Section 13 (1) (hhh) of the Rent Act, The defendants resisted the suits on the ground that they had already carried out the repairs and there was no valid order In existence which required the plaintiffs to immediately demolish the suit building. In other words the defendants contended that the plaintiffs had no cause of action under Section 13 (1) (hhh) against them on the strength of the notice given by the municipal authorities on 21-7-1958. At the trial the plaintiffs did not adduce any oral evidence nor did they examine any one of them. Similarly neither of the defendants have stepped into the witness-box. It appears that the parties went to the trial on the basis that it was a matter only for documentary evidence and the burden of proof, if any, was on the defendants. The defendants examined one witness on their behalf who happens to be the Municipal Engineer acquainted with certain facts relevant for the case.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge considered the evidence on record and negatived the defendants' contention that the order of notice of the Municipal authorities dated 21-7-1958 was no longer operative or effective for the purpose of the plaintiffs-' suit under Section 13 (1) (hhh ). The defendants' contention that by reason of the repairs carried out by them to the satisfaction of the municipal authorities the notice under Section 354, became nugatory was rejected by the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had established that they required possession of the premises for the purpose of immediate demolition ordered by the municipal authorities. Accordingly the learned trial Judge passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs in all the five suits.