DULANBI MIRASAHEB BELGAONKAR Vs. ANNAPPA KURKA DEVADIGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangli dated 11-7-1989 in Regional Civil Appeal No. 288 of 1985.

(2.) THE petitioner is the tenant on monthly basis in respect of three rooms in a house situated at C. T. S. No. 914, Pethbhag, Sangli. The respondent is the landlord. The predecessor of the respondent instituted a suit for eviction and possession of the suit premises against the petitioner on the ground of default, bona fide requirement and the petitioner having acquired alternate accommodation. The trial Court by judgment dated 10-4-1985 was pleased to dismiss the said suit and negatived all the three counts. During the pendency of the suit the respondent purchased the suit premises from the erstwhile owners-landlord. In fact it is the respondent who had entered the witness box as P. W. 1 and pursued the suit. Be that as it may, the respondent took the matter in appeal before the District Court, Sangli being R. C. Appeal No. 288 of 1985. The Appellate Court has affirmed the view taken by the trial Court in so far as the grounds of default and bona fide requirement are concerned, but has reversed the finding in so far as the ground of petitioner having acquired alternate accommodation within the meaning of section 13 (1) (1) of the Bombay Rent Act. The present petition by the tenant accordingly assails the said conclusion reached by the Appellate Court. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the respondent has not filed any petition challenging the correctness of the concurrent findings recorded by two courts below with regard to ground of default and bona fide requirement and as such the same have become final. In the circumstances the present controversy is confined only with regard to the ground of petitioner having acquired alternate suitable residence within the meaning of section 13 (1) (l) of the Act.

(3.) IN so far as this ground is concerned, the case of the respondent in the plaint as amended was that the petitioners daughters have constructed "surya Manzil" and "swar Samrat" bungalows and she was residing in the said palatial bungalow; and is/has let out the suit premises to others for illegal causes and profiteering and she does not require the suit premises. The aforesaid allegations in the plaint have been denied by the petitioner and she took a specific stand that she has no connection with the said bungalows. The petitioner denied that she was staying in the bungalow as alleged, but asserted that she was staying in the suit premises alongwith other family members, namely, widow sister and her four children, her brother and his family consisting of wife and sons etc. Both the parties adduced evidence before the trial Court. The trial Court on analysing the material on record concluded that the ground of petitioner having acquired alternate suitable residence was not established. Whereas, the Appellate Court, although accepted that the entries in 7/12 extract produced by the petitioner do indicate that the plot at Kolhapur Road stood in the name of petitioners daughters, but held that in the eye of law the petitioner was the owner of the plot. The Appellate Court has accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit on this count.