SYED ATEEQ Vs. SYED ABDUL QADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute is about the possession of a shop bearing municipal No. 7.2.58 situated at Chowk Bazar, Nanded, of which the petitioner is the owner and respondent is the tenant. The eviction sought for by the landlord under Section 15 was on account of the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent and the bonafide requirement of the petitioner.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner-landlord that he is running small confectionery shop and it is situated in improvised wooden box. He does not own any other premises in Nanded, and therefore, he is entitled for the possession of the suit premises for running the business which he is now carrying on. The learned Rent Controller, Nanded, who heard this application bearing No. 84/ARC-CCA/72 was pleased to hold that the landlord-petitioner is successful in proving default of the tenant in paying rent but was pleased to hold that the landlord is entitled for the possession of the premises for his bonafide personal use. The judgment and Order of the Rent Controller dated 26.8.1986 came to be challenged in Rent Appeal No. 61/86 before the learned District Judge, Nanded.

(3.) SHRI K. G. Kadar, learned Counsel for the petitioner/landlord, submitted that though a note of the subsequent event can always be taken in the proceedings like present one, the subsequent event should be material for the legal decision therein. According to Shri Kadar, entitlement of the landlord to get the possession of non-residential premises for carrying on the business in any way is not affected because of occupying another tenanted premises by the landlord. Therefore, the matter should not have been remanded requiring the landlord to wait for further long period to get relief to which he entitled under Section 15.