SUMITA PRADIPKUMAR DIXIT Vs. PUSHPADEVI G MAKHARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai, has rejected by the impugned order dated 1st November, 2001, the application made by the petitioner for being impleaded as party defendant to a suit which is pending trial before the trial Court. The petitioner challenges that order.

(2.) A suit has been instituted by the first to fourth respondents in their capacities as trustees of a registered Public Charitable Trust against the fifth to seventh respondents. In the suit, the relief that is prayed for is that the defendants be ordered to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff-trust. The premises which form the subject matter of the suit, consist of Survey No. 41, situated at Mahabaleshwar in the District of Satara. On the said property which admeasures 162 sq. mts. , a structure known as "shantiniketan" admeasuring about 162 sq. mtrs. consisting of 19 rooms is situated. According to the plaintiffs, by an agreement dated 21st October, 1970, the property was given on a licence to the first defendant for running a hotel. Thereafter, on 6th February, 1976, it is alleged that the premises were given on licence to the second defendant for conducting a hotel on a licence fee of Rs. 5000/- p. a. The first and second defendants are stated to have been running a hotel on the suit property by the name and style of Hotel Satkar. In the suit which has been filed before the trial Court, a decree for the handing over of possession of the property has been sought on the ground that (i) the defendants have carried out unauthorised permanent alterations in the suit property; (ii) since 1998, the first and second defendants stopped running the hotel business and inducted the third defendant in the suit property "as a sub-licence tenant". Consequently, it is alleged that the first and second defendants have committed a breach of the terms and conditions of the licence agreement and of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; (iii) the Public Charitable Trust of which the plaintiffs are trustees requires the premises bona fide for its use and occupation. The trust addressed a notice dated 21st March, 1996 to all the three defendants terminating the licence/tenancy and calling for the handing over of vacant possession. In these circumstances, a decree for possession has been sought.

(3.) THE first defendant initially filed a written statement opposing the grant of relief as prayed. The written statement of the first defendant records the fact that the first plaintiff Smt. Pushpadevi Makharia is the sister of the first and second defendants and that the property had been granted respectively to the first and second defendants by two licence agreements dated 21st October, 1970 and 6th February, 1976. Since the property was residential in nature, alterations were carried out therein to make it suitable for conducting a hotel with the permission of and in the presence of the aforesaid plaintiffs. According to the first and second defendant, the third defendant used to get bookings for the hotel from Bombay and is not in any manner concerned with the hotel business.