MOHANLAL DHANRAJ BHALGAT Vs. VISHNU WASUDEORAO SARAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is occupying three rooms on the front side of the ground floor of a three storied structure belonging to the respondent, who is a practicing Advocate at Chandrapur. Originally the entire house was leased out to petitioner's father in 1953 at a monthly rent of Rs. 67. Some time before 1963 (exact date is not on record) petitioner surrendered albeit at the request of the respondent, the first and second floors and backside half portion of the ground floor and simultaneously the rent for the remaining portion was fixed at an increased rate of Rs. 80 per month. Thereafter petitioner again surrendered some more portion of the ground floor retaining with him the present premises which consist of the shop on the front side and two rooms behind the shop. The rent, however, was increased from Rs. 80 per month to Rs. 100 per month.

(2.) PRESENTLY the petitioner is conducting a shop of utensils in the front room and is using the two rooms on the back side as godown. The premises presently in possession of the respondent consist of a living room, a dining room, kitchen, a bath -room, a shed and a Verandah adjoining the living and dining rooms on the ground floor, a hall, a room and bath room on the first floor and a hall and a terrace on the second.

(3.) BEFORE the Rent Controller, the parties examined themselves and led evidence of the Architects on whose reports they relied for proving their rival contentions. The respondent also placed on record some documentary evidence to show the preparation made by him for reconstructing the building and to establish his financial capacity to construct the building as per the plan submitted to the municipality. The Rent Controller accepted the evidence of the respondent and his Architect about the necessity of demolition and reconstruction of the building and held that respondent's claim for getting possession of the rented premises for his bona fide occupation is genuine. He further held that as the entire building would be required by the respondent for his personal occupation, the petitioner would not have right of re -entry after completion of the reconstruction. Consequently by his order dated 31st day of August, 1978, he granted the permission applied for. Agreeing with the Rent Controller, the Resident Deputy Collector, with appellate powers vide his order dated 28th February, 1979, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decision of the Rent Controller.