KAMALKISHOR Vs. STAR PAPER MART

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are challenging the Suit's dismissal, disbelieving the bonafide requirement.

(2.) On 25/02/2003, Petitioners' father filed Civil Suit No. 100/2003 for recovery of the Suit Property under Sec. 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that in the Suit building, on the ground floor, there are two shop blocks, one possessed by the family of Plaintiffs and the second by Defendants. The shop block in possession of Defendants is the Suit Property. The Suit was filed based on the oral partition; therefore, the Suit Property is required to start the business of the third son of original Plaintiffs, i.e. Ramkishor.

(3.) Respondents contested the said Suit by filing a written statement. It is stated that similar Proceedings on the ground of bonafide requirement were initiated by original Plaintiffs which were pending on the date of filing of the Suit against a Proprietary concerned is not maintainable as in the earlier Proceedings, the objection of Petitioners that the Suit Premises was let out to a Partnership Firm was accepted. It is stated that the adjoining premises to the Suit Property is in possession of the Plaintiffs, which is kept vacant.