ABDULHAMID FAKRUDDIN MANIYAR Vs. TULSIDAS BHUMAYYA KOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 16.11.1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal No. 651 of 1986, by which the appeal of the respondent against the judgment and order dated 31.7.1986 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Solapur was allowed.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None present for the respondent though duly served. The facts involved in the dispute are thus : The present petitioner landlord filed suit under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rents Act). To seek eviction of the suit premises and other ancillary reliefs. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Solapur adjudicated the disputes on the basis of available evidence led by both sides before him and came to the conclusion that the respondent was liable to be evicted from the suit premises and consequently passed a decree for eviction from the suit premises as well as for payment of arrears or rent and other ancillary reliefs. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Civil Court, the respondent tenant preferred the appeal in the District Court, Solapur. The Additional District Judge, Solapur, on the basis of record came to the conclusion that the lower court had fallen in error in passing eviction decree against the tenant and consequently judgment and decree of the Civil Court was set aside and by allowing the appeal the suit was dismissed. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) IT was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the suit premises which consists of two rooms were let out to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month only for the limited period of two to four years as in the year 1973 he intended to go to Miraj. Subsequently, when he returned from Miraj and intended to stay at Solapur, he asked for possession of the premises from the respondent but he refused to do so though there was alleged oral agreement between the parties to vacate the premises after a period of four years. At the outset, it may be noted that the alleged oral agreement is not established except for bare words of the petitioner. This aspect apart, the petitioner has submitted that there are nine members in his family who reside only in one room which are in their possession and hence he needs the suit premises for bonafide and genuine use. However, it has come on record that he is landlord of 10 rooms in the property. In his cross-examination, as it appears from the record, he has admitted that there were four tenants in the said property out of which two tenants vacated the suit premises totally consisting of five rooms, however, instead of occupying those five rooms or part thereof, he let out those five rooms to other tenants by accepting the deposit of Rs. 25,000/-. No doubt, the petitioner has tried to explain subsequent letting of those rooms on the ground that he was in need of money for marriage of his daughter. However, taking into account all the relevant aspects, it is not explained by the petitioner at any stage as to how all the five rooms were let out though they were vacated by the earlier tenants. In other words, the petitioner could very well retain one or two more rooms for his own occupation as he required more space for nine members of his family. In view of these aspects, in my considered view, the reasoning adopted and finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court on this point appears to be reasonable to the effect that the petitioner has failed to establish his bonafide regarding his plea for personal occupation of the premises. Once we reach this conclusion, the show (issue ?) of hardship answers itself and it must be held that said issue also goes against the petitioner.