SHANKAR VISHNU VENGURLEKAR Vs. RAJARAM PANDURANG DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original defendant, through his heirs, in Suit No. 1962 of 1979 on the file of the 4th Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune, have preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of eviction passed against them and directing them to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the defendants on or before 8th October, 1983 and to pay a sum of Rs. 331.55 with costs of the suit and also fixing standard rent of the suit premises as their appeal against the said order also came to be dismissed by the VII Additional District Judge, Pune.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this petition are as under :- The plaintiff filed a suit against the original defendant to seek possession of the suit premises under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act claiming that the suit premises consist of 2 rooms tenements in C.T.S. House No. 249, Narayan Peth Pune; that the plaintiffs are the owners and landlords; that the original defendant was a tenant and had agreed to pay Rs. 42.10 per month as rent inclusive of permissible increases; that the defendant had not paid the rent after 1979 and was a defaulter; that the defendant was a permanent resident of Belgaum in the State of Karnataka and had taken the suit premises for education of his children at Pune; that the daughter of the defendant thereafter got married and that she is residing with her husband; that the son of the defendant has construed a bungalow in Kothrcted with the help of the family funds and the entire family had gone to reside in the said newly constructed bungalow from May 1978; that they had locked the suit premises and the same was being damaged due to non-user. It appears that the plaintiffs had purchased the suit premises on 18th July, 1974 and at that time the defendant was a tenant in two rooms in the said premises and three rooms on the ground floor and one room on the first floor which were vacant were occupied by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claimed that taking into consideration the number of members in the family, their age, work, education etc., the said premises in their possession was insufficient and, therefore, they needed the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for their personal occupation. They also claimed that the defendant's family had acquired suitable alternate residential accommodation and therefore, also the plaintiffs were entitled to obtain possession of the suit premises. They also claimed that they were entitled to the possession of the suit premises as the defendant had not been using the suit premises for purpose for which it was taken for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the filing of the suit. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed possession of the suit premises under Sections 13(1)(g), 13(1)(1) and 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(3.) THE trial Court on the strength of evidence led before him found that the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit premises under Section 13(1)(I) of the Bombay Rent Act only, and that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the premises were required for personal use or occupation and that the premises were not used continuously for a period of six months preceding the filing of the suit and, therefore, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs only under Section 13(1)(i) of the said Act.