DEVICHAND BALKRISHNA SONAVANE Vs. KISAN SHRIPATI DHUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal filed by the original plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the District Court at Satara dismissing his appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for possession of the suit premises.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the suit premises together with the arrears of rent and costs of the suit. According to the plaintiffs the suit property was proposed by Deu Krishna Sonavane, who was then a minor by his guardian mother Rahi vice the registered sale deed dated 11th June 1921 and all the plaintiffs had joint interest in the suit property. The plaintiffs then stated that the suit plot is being used for manufacturing oven bricks since the last several years and was leased out to different tenants on a monthly basis. The plaintiffs also stated that the bricks are manufactured into ovens installed over the suit property since the beginning. It is their case that the defendants were given the suit plot on lease only for 11 months. According to the plaintiffs they terminated the tenancy of the defendants by notice dated 9th February 1970, served on defendant No. 1 as manager of the joint family of the defendants. According to them as the lease of the defendants was lawfully terminated, they were entitled to recover arrears of rent as well as for possession of the property.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and raised various contentions. The main contention raised by the defendants was that the notice given was illegal. According to them as the lease was for manufacturing purposes it is to be deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable by six months' notice, which was admittedly not given in the present case. After appreciating all the evidence on record, the learned Judge of the trial Court came to the conclusion that since the lease was for manufacturing purposes, it is deemed to be a yearly lease and hence the notice given by the plaintiffs was illegal. In this view of the matter, the plaintiffs' suit for possession was dismissed, though their suit for arrears of rent was decreed.