BALMUKUND NARSINGDAS SOMANI Vs. PRAKASH JAGDISH AMBALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the original defendants-tenants is directed against the judgement and decree dated 23rd October, 1978, passed by the learned District Judge, Sholapur, in Civil Appeal No. 331 of 1977. Original proceedings were instituted by the plaintiffs-landlords for possession of the suit premises under section 13(1)(b) (permanent structure), section 13(1)(e) (sub-letting) and section 13(1)(g) (bona fide requirement) of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial Court decreed the suit on all these grounds. The Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court on the question of unlawful sub-letting consequently disentitling the plaintiffs from possession of the suit premises under section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act. The Appellate Court, however, confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court under section 13(1)(b) and section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. Hence, this petition.

(2.) Hearing Mr. M. D. Gangakhedkar, the learned Advocate for the petitioners-tenants, Mr. V.M. Kanade, the learned Advocate for the respondents-plaintiffs and going through the judgement of the two courts below and considering the question of alleged permanent structure in the light of the decided cases of this Court and also considering the question of plaintiffs case under section 13(1)(g) in the light of section 13(2). I am of the view that (a) plaintiffs claim for possession under section 13(1)(b) is liable to fail; (b) plaintiffs reasonable and bona fide requirement within the meaning of section 13(1)(g) is established; and (c) in the light of the mandatory provisions of section 13(2) the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of part of the suit premises and the defendants are entitled to continue as tenants of the remaining part.

(3.) The premises originally leased to the defendants consisted of the entire basement of eleven khans as also seven khans on the ground floor and seventeen khans on the first floor of the suit house No. 745. The plaintiffs purchased the entire suit house from the original owner in the year 1970. Upon such purchase, the plaintiffs original occupation as tenants of part of the ground floor became occupation thereof as owners. The position after the plaintiffs purchase thus was that the plaintiffs were in possession of part of the ground floor and the defendants were tenants in possession of the basement together with seven khans on the ground floor and seventeen khans of the first floor. In this situation, the local authority acquired part of the property for a public purpose viz., for widening of the public road in question. After acquisition, the local authority demolished the acquired portion. On such demolition, the entire front portion of the suit house became open, the external walls having stood demolished as a result of the aforesaid action of the local authority. In this view, the defendants-tenants requested the plaintiffs-landlords to repair the suit premises. The plaintiffs not having responded and having thus failed to keep the surviving suit premises in good and tenantable repairs, as indeed they were bound to do under section 23 of the Rent Act, the defendants-tenants sought permission of the local authority to do so. After obtaining the said permission, the tenants started repairing the suit premises. At that stage, however, the landlords sued the tenants for injunction restraining them from doing the said work. They also claimed mandatory injunction for demolition of the work in progress till then. Further work was stopped by interim injunction. The said suit was decreed and in execution, the plaintiffs got demolished the work earlier partly carried out by the tenants.