BALKRISHNA SHRIKISAN JAJU Vs. RANGRAJ ANANDRAJ MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners-landlords, impugn the validity of the order dated 5th August, 1983 made by the learned II Extra Assistant Judge, Pune in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 286 of 1979 reversing the order of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Pune, in Miscellaneous Application No. 723 of 1974 who had rejected the tenants application under section 17 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "bombay Rent Act" ). The respondents Advocate was absent on 21st February, 1990 and 22nd February, 1990. The hearing was adjourned to enable him to appear. He remained absent on 28th February, 1990 also, when the petition was heard.

(2.) TWO questions arise for consideration:-

(3.) THE petitioners, the joint owners of the house No. 1508. Sadashiv Peth, Pune-2, instituted the Suit No. 770 of 1971 in which a decree for eviction from the two rooms was made against the respondent on 14th August, 1972. The decree directs that "defendant shall hand over to the plaintiffs, possession. . . . . . . ". This was consistent with the status of all the petitioners as joint owners. The Respondent-tenant-filed Civil Appeal No. 685 of 1972. The learned District Judge, Pune, confirmed the decree on the ground that the petitioners bonafide required the premises for their occupation. The decree of the District Court is dated 16th September, 1972. This decree too directs the defendant to hand over possession to the plaintiffs and not to any individual plaintiff. The respondent handed over possession of the premises on 15th January, 1974 which was received by the petitioner No. 2 who was the plaintiff No. 2. Meanwhile, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were married. Their wives did not carry on well with each other. They were conducting the business belonging to joint family in different premises. One of them was the suit premises. The petitioner No. 1 was given for use a part of the suit premises for residence and the remaining part for business. Likewise the petitioner No. 2 was given for use another premises of the family for residence and business of the joint family. In accordance with this arrangement the possession of the suit premises were given to the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 2 was given another premises of the family.