DATTATRAYA PANDIT KHAROTE Vs. PANDURANG MARUTI JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the original defendant tenant seeking to challenge the decree for possession passed under Sections 13(1)(g) and 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act. The suit premises consist of one room measuring 9' x 9' on the ground floor of house No. 106/1, Wana Peth, Pune. The defendant has been in possession of the said premises since about the year 1966. The present suit was filed on the ground that the plaintiff reasonably and bonafide requires the said premises for his personal occupation and that the defendant has acquired an alternate suitable residence. Both the trial Court as also the Appellate Court have decreed the suit on both the aforesaid grounds. The said decrees are impugned in the present petition.

(2.) IN regard to the ground of bonafide requirement, it has been found that there are 17 members in the family of the plaintiff. Three sons of the plaintiff are married. The plaintiff has four grandsons and four sons. The premises in the occupation of the plaintiff consists of an attic admeasuring 9' x 18' which is on the top of the suit premises. If on these facts, the trial as also the Appeal Court have held the ground of bonafide requirement as proved, no justifiable grievance can be made against the said finding.

(3.) IN respect of the ground of acquisition of alternate suitable residence under Section 13(1)(i) Miss Shirke, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant strenuously submitted that the suit premises have been used right from the inception of the tenancy in the year 1966 for the composite purpose of residence as also business. She pointed out that though there was no documentary evidence regarding the business which was being carried on by the defendant for the period 1966 to 1969, there is on record sufficient material to show that the defendant was carrying on the business of goldsmith atleast for the period after 1969. She placed reliance on the licence issued under the Gold Control Order as also the registration of the defendant's concern 'Sanjay Goldsmith' under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. She submitted that the defendant was conducting business in silver for the period 1966 to 1969 which did not require a licence under the Gold Control Order. According to her even if it were held that the defendant has been conducting his business from 1960 the same was to the knowledge of the plaintiff who was residing in the very building. No objection was taken right upto the year 1982. She, therefore, submitted that both the lower Courts have erred in arriving at a finding that the suit premises were let only for residential purposes. According to her, the letting is for a composite purpose, of residence as also business, once it is so held, no decree an be passed under Section 18(1)(i).