PRAKASH SADASHIV WAGHMARE Vs. ANIL YASHWANT JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri P. M. Shah, learned Senior Counsel i/b Shri L. B. Pallod, advocate for the Petitioners.

(2.) THE present writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. The present proceeding arises out of the suit being RCS No. 587/94 filed by the present Respondent-landlord claiming possession of a portion of property having Municipal House No. 389 situate at Chitale Road, Ahmednagar. The parties herein will be referred to as "defendants" and "plaintiff respectively hereafter. The present petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is plaintiff.

(3.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff let out the suit property to the defendant No. 1 on the monthly rent of Rs. 150/- + Rs. 6. 50 electricity charges. After the death of plaintiff s father, his mother pushpatai used to collect the rent from the tenants and used to issue receipts. The mother of the plaintiff died in 1992. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 had paid rent till April, 1992. Thereafter the plaintiff asked the defendant No. 1 to pay the rent and permitted increases, but the defendant No. 1 avoided to pay the said rent. It is contended that the defendant No. 1 had not paid the rent and permitted increases and, therefore, has committed default. It is contended that on this ground, the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the rented premises. It is contended that the plaintiff is in the service of Kinetic Company at ahmednagar. The wife of the plaintiff has claimed possession from the defendants by issuing notice through her advocate. Thereafter defendants filed Misc. Application No. 97/1981 which was ended in compromise and rent of the suit premises is fixed at Rs. 150/ -. There is change in the need of the plaintiff. It is contended that son of the plaintiff viz. Abhijit, who is 20 years of age and taking education, intend to start business and for that purpose, the plaintiff needed the rented room which is in the occupation of the defendants. It is contended that except the suit property, the plaintiffs has no other property to start the business of his son. It is contended that the son of the plaintiff is possessing the skill, knowledge and experience required for the business which he intends to start and, therefore, the suit property is required genuinely, bona fide and for immediate purpose. It is also contended that the defendant No. 1 has started his dispensary in other premises and hence he is not in need of the suit property. It is contended that if possession is not handed over to the plaintiff great hardship will be caused to the plaintiff. On these averments the plaintiff claimed possession of the suit property.