PURUSHOTTAM Vs. SHIVLING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, legal heirs of Mr. Purushottam D. Rajadne, landlord/original plaintiff, in R.C.S. No. 19 of 1986, have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the Judgment and Order dtd. 31/1/1998 passed in Civil Appeal No. 122 of 1994 preferred by the original defendant/respondent herein, allowing the said appeal and setting aside the Judgment and Order dtd. 10/2/1994 passed in R.C.S. No. 19 of 1986. By the said Judgment and Order dtd. 10/2/1994, the trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Sec. 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, the Rent Act). In an appeal preferred by the Respondent/defendant/tenant the appellate Court while allowing the said appeal, set aside the Judgment and Order passed by the trial court dtd. 10/2/1994 and dismissed the suit filed by the original plaintiff.

(2.) Heard Mr. Drupad Patil learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. I.M. Khairdi, learned Advocate for the respondent. Perused entire record.

(3.) Record reveals that, the petitioner/landlord had filed R.C.S. No. 19 of 1986 in the Court Civil Judge Junior Division, Barshi, at Barshi, District Solapur, for possession of suit property, description of which is more specifically mentioned in para. No.1 of the plaint and for recovery of rent on the ground of default, permanent alteration and nuisance. The trial Court decreed the said suit only on the ground that, the petitioner was entitled to recover possession from respondent under Sec. 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act, as according to trial Court, respondent did not pay contractual rent despite receipt of notice from the petitioner and had also not deposited rent in the Court on the first date of hearing. The trial Court did not accept other grounds pleaded by the petitioner for eviction of respondent.