SUKHADEO MARUTI GANGANE Vs. LAXMIBAI VITHAL SATPUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

(2.) WITH a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to make a brief reference to the facts of the case. The Respondent is the Plaintiff and the Petitioner is the Defendant. The suit premises consists of two rooms on the first floor of the property more particularly described in the Plaint. The suit was filed by the Respondent-landlady against the Petitioner for possession on the ground of bona fide need. A case was made out that out of six room in the house of the Respondent, two rooms are in possession of the tenant Shivaji Shankar Kore and one room was in possession of one Vishnu S. Renake. It is contended that one room on the first floor was in possession of the Respondent. The bonafide need pleaded was that there were five members in the family of the Respondent. The suit was contested by the Petitioner by filing a Written Statement. It was contended that the Respondent was in possession of the two rooms on the first floor and a passage on the ground floor. It was contended that the Respondent was residing in the said premises and that her son along with her daughter in law were residing with his mother-in-law in Ramwadi. Reliance was placed on the earlier suit filed in the year 1978 on the ground of bona fide need which was dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Petitioner has taken the Court through the evidence recorded by the Appellate Court after remand. He submitted that in fact this finding shows that the said Kore is not at all using the premises which shows that he must have surrendered the premises to the Respondent. He submitted that it cannot be believed that though the said tenant is not using the suit premises, the landlady has neither proceeded against him in the Court nor has taken possession of the said premises. He invited the attention of the Court to the findings recorded by the Appellate Court and submitted that the findings are perverse. He pointed out the order passed by this Court at the time of admission of the Writ Petition. He stated that as per the statement made by the Petitioner, one room admeasuring 8 x 8 feet out of the suit premises has been surrendered by the Petitioner to the Respondent-landlady. He pointed out that the stay was granted only as regards the other room. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent stated that he has not received any instructions from the Respondent. However, he has supported the impugned Judgment and Decree.