HASMUKH R. JOSHI Vs. DATTATRAYA MAHADEO RONGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original defendants of Civil Suit No. 1755 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Small Causes Judge, have preferred this Writ Petition to challenge the order directing them to deliver possession of the premises in suit [as described in para (a) of the plaint] and to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff and further that an enquiry into future mesne profits be made and the defendants were granted three months' time from the date of the judgment to vacate the suit premises, which has been confirmed in Civil Appeal No. 913 of 1989 by the 6th Additional District Judge, Pune.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under : -

(3.) THE original Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement and resisted the suit. It appears that Defendant No. 2 also adopted the written statement contended in the W.S. that after the death of Bhanumati Defendant No. 1, the Defendant No. 2 and her son are the tenants in the suit premises. They also claimed that even during the lifetime of deceased Bhanumati, Defendant No. 2 and her son were residing with Bhanumati. They also claimed that the Defendant No. 1 though has been carrying on business at Baroda and has to stay at Baroda for the purposes of his business, his residence at Baroda is temporary one and his permanent residence is the suit premises. They also deny the allegation that the suit premises are locked and on the other hand they contended the suit premises were not locked for a single day. According to the defendants, deceased Bhanumati had gone to Baroda a fortnight before her death along with the Defendant No. 2 and while she was at Baroda on 10.6.1986 she died. They also claimed that the defendant No. 2 actually had returned to the suit premises at Pune after reaching deceased Bhanumati to Baroda. They specifically denied that the suit premises are locked for more than six months before the filing of the suit without any reasonable cause.