PURSHOTTAM SONU BAHALKAR Vs. DATTATRAY DAGDU DOBHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the original defendant-tenant seeking to challenge a decree for possession under Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. The suit premises consist of a house bearing No. CTS 1237 at Dhule. The instant suit was filed for possession on several grounds. The other grounds on which possession was claimed were negated by the trial Court. The said grounds were not pressed into service either in the Appellate Court or before me. Hence the only ground which required consideration is whether the defendant after coming into operation of the Act has acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant being a mill worker was allotted a plot in Shivsakti Housing Society. He constructed two blocks each consisting of two rooms. The said claim was resisted by the defendant by contending that though the plot stood in his name the construction was put by his wife. Since the loan which was utilised for the purpose of putting up the construction had to be repaid one of the two blocks had been let out.

(3.) BY a judgment and decree dated 22nd January, 1986, the learned District Judge affirmed the finding of the trial Court regarding the acquisition of suitable residence by the defendant. The defence of the defendant that the construction of the new premises was not by him but his wife was negated. The learned Judge found that the new premises consisted of almost double the size of the suit premises. According to the learned Judge, the defendant was not justified on account of the increase in his family members to deny the plaintiffs to their right to possession under Section 13(1)(1). Since the newly built accommodation was large the same cannot be held to be unsuitable for residence of the defendant and members of his family. Consequent upon the said findings the appeal of the defendant was dismissed with costs.