AVINASH V MHAPANKAR Vs. PRABHAKAR S KELKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition takes exception to the Order passed by the Additional District Judge, Raigad-Alibag dated 30th August, 1989 in Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1983.

(2.) THE petitioner is the successor in interest of original tenant Vitthalrao Sakharam Mhapankar. The respondent No. 1 landlord had filed suit for possession of the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement under the special provisions of section 13 A-1 (i) of the Bombay Rent Act, being Air Force personnel. Undisputedly, the premises were occupied by original tenant Vitthalrao for residential purpose, whereas the ground of bona fide requirement pressed into service by the respondent No. 1 landlord was for starting of photography business. It is also not in dispute that in all there are 4 tenements in house No. 591 situated within the Municipal Limits at Alibag. When the suit was instituted at the relevant time, block Nos. 1 and 3 were already in occupation of respondent No. 1 landlord. He wanted the suit premises, occupied by the original tenant, predecessor of the petitioner, being block No. 2, on the ground of bona fide requirement to start a business. The trial Court, however, dismissed the suit taking the view that the landlord had failed to establish bona fide and reasonable requirement. It is in appeal that the respondent No. 1 landlord succeeded and the Appellate Court passed the decree for possession against the tenant on the said ground. This decree passed by the Appellate Court is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) IN this writ petition the petitioner specifically asserts that he has had personal knowledge that the landlord has, during pendency of the appeal before the District Court, Raigad, some time in 1985, obtained possession of one block No. 4 from the other tenant Shri Limkar who has left the said premises. Besides making this averment in writ petition the petitioner has placed this fact on record by way of affidavit which is (Exhibit D to the petition ). This Court issued Rule on 24th October, 1989 which has been duly served upon the respondent No. 1 landlord. Notwithstanding the above said assertion the respondent No. 1 has not filed any affidavit in reply refuting the contents of the affidavit at Exhibit D. In the circumstances, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the changed circumstances the respondent No. 1 landlord will not be entitled for a decree of possession on the ground of bona fide requirement inasmuch as the respondent landlord having obtained possession of block No. 4, therefore, his plea of bona fide requirement set up against the petitioner tenant is no longer subsisting.