BABHUTMAL RAICHAND OSWAL Vs. LAXMIBAI RAGHUNATH TARTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the defendant -tenant, whose eviction from the premises is ordered by the Courts below in a suit filed by the respondent -plaintiffs under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (LVII of 1947). A few facts leading to this ejectment proceeding may be stated: The shop premises consisting of 3 khans and 4 ghadis on the southern side ground floor of House No. 172 (old) in Ravivar Peth, Poona, and now known as No. 879 (new) in Budhwar Peth, Poona are occupied by the petitioner as a monthly tenant at a rental of Rs. 28.42 per month. The plaintiffs have purchased the building of which the suit premises form part on December 12, 1963 from the former owner. They terminated the petitioner's tenancy by a notice dated November 12, 1964 and filed a suit claiming possession of the premises on several grounds. It will be sufficient if I refer only to one ground on which the decree passed by the Courts below is based. It was stated in the plaint that the petitioner had taken the suit premises for the purpose of a shop and lie has commenced using the same for residence as he is now residing therein with his family. The plaintiffs averred that the petitioner is using the premises for a purpose other than the one for which he initially had taken them on rent.

(2.) THE petitioner by filing a written statement at exh. 16 resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. In para. 3 of the written statement, the petitioner submitted that he had not taken the premises on rent only for the purpose of the shop. In fact he had taken the premises for his business as well as for his residence. In other words, it Was the case of the petitioner that the premises Were rented by him for the composite purpose of business and residence.

(3.) ISSUE No. 3 reads thus: If so, do they prove that the defendant, is using the premises for the purpose other than the purpose for which the premises were let? The learned trial Judge, after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, recorded findings in the affirmative on these two issues. In view of these findings, he came to the conclusion that the defendant was using the premises for a purpose other than the purpose for which the premises were let. He held that the plaintiffs had proved, their case for possession under Section 13(1)(k) of the Rent Act. Aggrieved by the abovementioned decree the defendant preferred an appeal and the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Poona, confirmed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner is now challenging this decree in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.