KASTURCHAND PANACHAND DOSHI Vs. YESHWANT VINAYAK SAINKARS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts involved in his petition are very few though the scope of the inquiry has been widened by the considerable industry which Shri Ajit P. Shah, appearing for the first petitioner, has brought to bear on this matter. The first petitioner was a tenant of a room measuring 19 x 14 and situated in building No. 427/428-A at Budhwar Peth in Pune City. He came into possession of the suit room, hereinafter referred to as the suit premises, pursuant to a rent note executed on 1st of October, 1957. The said rent note has specifically mentioned that the first petitioner hereinafter referred to for brevitys sake as "the petitioner", was to conduct the business of milk in the suit premises. The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner while the third petitioner is the firm of the first two petitioners. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the building in which the suit premises are situated and, therefore, the landlords of the petitioners.

(2.) Having noticed that the petitioners were about to use the suit premises for the purpose of workshop by installing heavy machinery in the same, the respondent sent a notice to them on 13th of March, 1975 terminating the tenancy of the petitioners. By the said notice the petitioner was also called upon not to use the suit premises for the purpose contemplated by him. Despite this it was found by the respondents that the petitioners installed the machinery and started using the suit premises for a purpose other than the one for which it has been originally let out. The respondents, therefore filed a suit, being Civil Suit No. 2947 of 1976 in the Court of Small Causes at Pune on 20th of October, 1976.

(3.) In the said suit the second and the third petitioners were added as defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that the first petitioner had illegally sublet the suit premises in their favour. Though the trial Court several grounds were urged in support of the prayer for eviction and the trial Court itself accepted some of them for passing the decree for eviction, ultimately the ground which remains for consideration by me is the ground which is mentioned in section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act", read with section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act. It means that the petitioner has used the suit premises for a purpose other than the one for which it was leased. From the discussion in the judgment of the appeal Court below I also notice that the decree is further based upon a finding that the petitioner has into used the suit premises without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let out for a continuous period of 6 months immediately proceeding the date of the suit. These two grounds, namely using the suit premises for a purpose for which they were not let out as mentioned in section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, and not using the suit premises for a period of 6 months or more immediately proceeding the date of the suit for the purpose for which they were let out and that too without a reasonable cause are apparently overlapping and Shri Shah has justifiably advanced some arguments upon the same.