SHANKARLAL RAMRATAN SHET Vs. PANDHARINATH VISHNU PHATAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal from the decision of the learned Asst. Judge, Jalgaon, allowing the appeal against the decision of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Jalgaon.

(2.) THE pltf. is the owner of a house bearing City Survey No. 1991 which consisted of business premises. A lease for a period of about five years expiring on 4-11-1945, was granted by the pltf. to the deft. The deft. however, continued in possession of the suit premises even after the expiration of the period of the lease. A two-thirds portion of the suit premises had been requisitioned by the Govt. and a one-third portion was in the possession of the deft. On 18-6-1946, the pltf. filed a suit for possession of the suit premises consisting of one-third of the house in the actual possession of the deft. basing his claim for possession on the ground that he required the suit premises for his own use and occupation. This claim of the pltf. was resisted by the deft. who contended that the pltf. did not require the premises for his own use and occupation. The trial Ct. held that the Bombay Act LVII [57] of 1947 which came into operation from 13-2-1948 applied but that the suit premises were not required by the pltf. reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation and therefore dismissed the pltf's. suit on 19-4-1948. The pltf. filed an appeal from this decision of the learned trial Judge. The lower appellate Ct. came to the conclusion that the Bombay Act VII [7] of 1944 was applicable, that the same did not apply to business premises and that therefore the deft. was not entitled to the protection of the Act. Under the circumstances the lower appellate Ct. does not appear to have considered the question whether the pltf. required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation and proceeding on the basis that the deft. was not entitled to the protection of the Bombay Act VII [7] of 1944 decreed the pltf's. claim and ordered the deft. to hand over possession of the suit premises to the pltf. This second appeal was filed by the deft. from that decision of the lower appellate Ct.

(3.) BEFORE we proceed to deal with the main question that has been canvassed before us in this appeal we might as well dispose of two minor points which were urged before us by Mr. R. B. Kotwal for the applt. viz. (1) whether the Govt. which had requisitioned two-thirds of the suit premises were necessary parties to the suit and (2) whether a suit could lie for possession only of a one-third part of the salt property which had been the subject-matter of the original lease.