PRABHAKAR EKNATH GATE Vs. HASSAN HUSSEIN DASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filled by the landlord whose suit for recovery of possession of suit premises on the ground mentioned under section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rent Act has been dismissed by both the courts below for somewhat curious reasons.

(2.) The petitioner who will be referred to hereafter as the plaintiff is admittedly the owner of the building House No. 380, Shivajinagar, Poona-5. Originally, it was ground plus one floor structure. It is not disputed before me now that the total carpet area of the ground floor as well as the first floor was about 2900 sq. ft. Out of this area, an area of 159 sq. ft. on the first floor was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant. Being desirous of demolishing the house in question with a view to construct in its place a ground plus three floors building, he obtained the necessary certificate from the Tribunal referred to in section (3-B) of section 13 of the Rent Act complying with the requirements ordained by sub-section (3-A) & (3-B) of the same and thereafter instituted the suit in the Court of Small Causes, at Pune under section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rent Act. In short ,his contention was that he would demolish the present structure and would construct a three storied structure, that is to stay, a building consisting of ground plus three floors. He gave the necessary undertaking to the Court that he would complete the construction within the requisite time and would hand over possession of the newly constructed premises of approximately the same area to the tenant after re-construction was complete within the requisite period. He contended that it was necessary for him to get the possession of the suit premises, that is to say, the one room in the occupation of the defendant on the first floor of the building, admeasuring 159 sq.ft. area, for the purpose of demolition and re-construction.

(3.) The defendant registered the suit and the plaintiffs claim. He questioned the landlords bona fides as also the reasonableness of the demand. He pleaded that the greater hardship would be caused to him if a decree for eviction was passed against him as prayed for by the plaintiff. He denied that the requirements of the section 13(3-A) or 13(3-B) were complied with by the plaintiff. In other words, he contested the plaintiffs claim on every conceivable ground.