SHAIK MAHAMUDMIYA MOHIDDIN Vs. KRISHNA MAHADEO PHARANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 is a tenant and petitioner No. 2 is the sub-tenant of the respondent Krishan Mahadeo Pharande who is original plaintiff. A house bearing City Survey No. 975A situated at Dharampuri Peth in Wai originally belonged to one Chintaman Narhar Narvane. Petitioner No. 1 was the tenant of two khans shop premises in the said house. It appears that petitioner No. 2 was carrying on Pan-shop in the said premises for a considerable time as a sub-tenant of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 has also been carrying on his business of selling decorative fire works and blasting powder as well as tobacco.

(2.) The suit house appears to have purchased by the plaintiff and his brother Shankar under a registered sale-deed at Exh. 187 on June 16, 1966 for a consideration of Rs. 22,000/-. There was partition between the two brothers and their mother, which was evidenced by registered Partition Deed, dated October 10, 1968. The said partition deed is produced on record at Exh. 139 and all the shareholders were put in actual possession or symbolical possession of the shops fallen to the shares in accordance with the partition deed. Admittedly, the suit shop was fallen to the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave a notice to petitioner No. 1 on November 8, 1968 for the purpose of attornment of the tenancy. Thereafter the plaintiff gave a notice terminating tenancy of petitioner No. 1 on April 2, 1969. The said notice was replied by petitioner No. 1. The plaintiff thereafter filed the present suit against the defendants-petitioners herein in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai being Regular Civil Suit No. 117 of 1969.

(3.) The plaintiff prayed for decree for possession of the suit premises on the allegation that he required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for the personal use and occupation, particularly bonafide requirement of his son Datta. It is further alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint that the portion of the suit premises was sub-let after 1959. On these two grounds, the plaintiff claimed possession of the suit premises.