SHRIPAD VASUDEO VATVE Vs. NARHAR BHARGAV KARMARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the original plaintiffs-landlords arising out of proceedings initiated by them for bona fide requirement of the premises in question under section 13a1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, "the Bombay Rent Act" ). The premises in question are a one room tenement admeasuring about 120 sq. ft. bearing C. T. S. No. 1370/a, suitable at Sadashiv Peth, Pune. Admittedly, the respondent was a tenant of the premises before the petitioners acquired the premises under a registered Sale Deed dated 24th December 1970. The evidence on record shows that the premises were acquired by the two petitioners jointly for a consideration of Rs. 23,000/-, out of which Rs. 20,000/- were paid by the first petitioner who is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union of India. The second petitioner is the brother of the first petitioner. The suit was instituted in the year 1977 on the ground that the first petitioner who is a landlord is a member of the Armed Forces and that the premises are bona fide required by the members of his family. His family then consisted of his wife and two daughters then aged 8 and 6. Section 13a1, which is a special provision meant for the benefit of the members of the Armed Forces, requires that a landlord who is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union should produce a certificate signed by the authorised officer to the effect that :-

(2.) THE respondent-tenant opposed the petitioners" contentions and contended that the premises were not at all suitable for the residence of a person of the status of the first petitioner. The certificate issued by the authorised officer under section 13a1 (1) (A) was also challenged. The other two grounds under section 13 (1) (k) and section 13 (1) (1) were also resisted by the respondent-tenant.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the premises were bona fide required by the petitioners for the residence of the members of the family of the first petitioner and that the petitioners were entitled to avail of the remedy under section 13a1. It was further held that the petitioner were also entitled to possession on the ground that the respondent-tenant had acquired suitable accommodation for his residence within the meaning of section 13 (1) (1) of the Rent Act. However, the case of the petitioners on the ground of non-user of the premises for more than 6 months under section 13 (1) (k) of the Rent Act was negatived by the learned trial Judge. In the results, the learned trial Judge passed a decree in favour of the petitioners on 22nd February, 1979.