DEVI JOHN VAZIRANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's case is that she is a member of the Sindhi Immigrants Cooperative Housing Society Limited (for brevity's sake hereinafter referred to as 'the said Society'): That the said Society allotted to her a plot bearing No. 107 A. That she put up a building thereon known as John Devi Mansion consisting of four small flats. That she has in her possession two flats on the first floor. That in so far as the ground floor is concerned, she had given out one of the flats to S. P. Nayak on leave and licence basis since about 1st June, 1972.

(2.) It is the petitioner's case that this Nayak committed several breaches of the terms and conditions of the licence and further failed and neglected to pay the compensation due under the agreement. That she also needed this flat for her personal use and occupation. That she called upon the said Nayak to quit, vacate and deliver up vacant possession of the said fiat to her. That the said Nayak turned round and pleaded that he was a protected licensee and was not liable to vacate the premises. That she thereupon filed a suit in the Small Causes Court being Suit RAE & R Suit No. 578/ 2656 of 1975 for recovery of possession of this flat. That grounds on which she sought this decree were (a) that Nayak had failed and neglected to pay the compensation and/or was in arrears, (b) that he was committing nuisance, and (c) that she required the premises for her bona fide use and occupation. That Nayak did not appear in these proceedings. Evidence was led on her behalf. During the course of evidence, the deposition of her witness was confined to Nayak being in arrears of compensation and/or rent and that Nayak was committing nuisance. Since Nayak did not appear in these proceedings, she was advised not to lead evidence on other grounds and accordingly she reserved her evidence in so far as other grounds were concerned. That an ex parte decree came to be passed on the 24th Jan. 1976.

(3.) It is the petitioner's case that this decree having been passed, she addressed a letter dated 30th Aug., 1976, to the Controller of Accommodation, inter alia, informing that a decree had been passed in respect of this flat on the ground floor of her building. In the said letter she also informed the Controller of Accommodation that she wanted these premises for her personal bona fide use and occupation and that in view of this the Accommodation Officer should give her a 'no objection' certificate. By a letter dated 17th Sept., 1976, the Controller of Accommodation asked her to inform him as to where she was staying prior to 21st Apr., 1976 and called upon her to furnish to him a certified copy of the decree. By a letter dated the 4th Oct., 1976, she supplied the said particulars to the Controller of Accommodation and also furnished a copy of the said decree. By a letter dated 16th Oct., 1976, the Controller of Accommodation asked her to intimate to him the vacancy in the form prescribed. By a letter dated the 20th Dec., 1976 she informed the Controller that she had executed the decree on the 17th Dec., 1976 and had obtained possession. With the said letter she also returned the form intimating the vacancy duly filled in by her. That by an order dated the 3rd Jan., 1977 the Accommodation Officer informed her that he had requisitioned the flat "to save the vacancy from lapsing, pending examination of your (that is her) request". By the said letter the Controller of Accommodation also called upon her to give an undertaking not to claim compensation until her application that she required the premises for her bona fide use and occupation was disposed of. By a letter dated 8th Jan., 1977 she gave the said undertaking.