SADASHIVRAO VINAYAKRAO PATKI Vs. SHANTABAI GANGADHARRAO NIMGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned District Judge, Beed dated March 2, 1979 in Rent Appeal No. 9 of 1977.

(2.) Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein filed an application under section 15 (3) (a) (iii) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Hyderaban Rent Act") for evidtion of the petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement for use and occupation. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 contended in their application that sons of respondent No. 1 Arun, aged about 24 years and Subhash aged about 22 are unemployed and there is no likelihood of getting any service for them. Therefore, the suit premises are required to start a business so that the two boys can run business. The said application was resisted by the petitioner-tenant contending, inter alia, that there was no ban fide requirement of the landlords and they wanted possession of the suit premises with a view to increase the rent. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions and on consideration of the said evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the landlords have failed to prove the bona fide requirement by judgment and order dated October 18, 1977. The landlords feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Rent Controller, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Beed. The said appeal came to be allowed holding that the landlords have proved their bona fide requirement and accordingly an order of eviction was passed in favour of the landlords. The petitioner-tenant has challenged the said judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Narendra Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing in support of this writ petition, submitted that the landlords respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have got another non-residential premises in the city which are in possession of one for Rayte as a tenant and the landlords have not made any application to get possession of the said house which Dr. Rayte occupies. Mr. Chapalgaonkar further contended that section 15 (3) (a) (iii) provides that in case it is any other non-residential house, if the landlord is not occupying for purpose of a business which he is carrying on, a non-residential house in the city, town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled, the landlord may apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the said house. According to Mr. Chapalgaonkar, the landlords were entitled to possession of the premises occupied by Dr. Rayte and in the absence of any material on the record, it must be held that the bar imposed on a landlord under sub-clause (iii) of claus!e (a) of sub-section (3) of section 15 of the Hyderabad Rent Act would be attracted.