DINKAR VISHWANATH PENSE Vs. JAYANT VASANT JOGELKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Application filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 31F of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, "the Bombay Rent Act") seeking to challenge the order dated 5th August, 1989 passed by the Competent Authority, Pune Division, Pune, in proceedings under Section 13(A)(1) of the said Bombay Rent Act. This Revision Application raises the question as to the scope of the powers of this Court in revision under Sub-section (2) of Section 31F of the Bombay Rent Act. Section 13A1 in corporates a special procedure in favour of the members of the Armed forces of the Union, scientists, and their successor in interest who are entitled to recover possession of the premises bonafide required for their occupation or for occupation by any member of their family. The premises are a two-room tanement in the a House belonging to Respondent situate at 48/2, Paud Road, Erandawne, Pune. The respondent, admittedly, is now serving as at Lt. Colonel in the Indian Army. He has applied to the Housing Society for purchase of the plot and the structure which stood in the name of the previous owner Smt. Damle. On 28th April, 1985 the society passed Resolution No. 8 recording the fact that Smt. Damle had desired to transfer the said plot and the structure. Accordingly, on the 5th March 1986 the respondent purchase the said plot and the structure from Smt. Damle. Admittedly, the petitioner is the tenant in the suit premises form 1974 or thereabout.

(2.) THE case of the respondent is simple. He says that he is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union. He is posted at different places having regard to the exigencies of his service. The parents and the brothers of the respondent are settle in Pune. His wife belonged to Pune and her parents are also settle in Pune. Having regard to the frequent transfers of Army Officers, the respondent thought it desirable to keep his family in Pune basically for the purpose of education of his children. He has a daughter born on 3rd March 1976 and a son born on 2nd March 1981. He gave notice to the petitioner on 29th August 1986 pointing out his difficulties and sought possession of the premises on terminating the tenancy with effect from Ist September, 1988. On the petitioner's failure to comply with the said notice, the application has been filed on 8th March 1989. He was holding the rank of a Major at that time.

(3.) ALL the trial, the respondent examined himself and stated categorically that he and his wife both belonged to Pune. The respondent further stated that his parents and two brothers were also settled in Pune and they had their separate residences. The respondent contended that for some time in the past he was posted at a non-family station. The respondent made it clear that he had purchased the property at Pune with the sole intention of keeping his children at Pune for the purpose of their education. He also referred to the desirability of avoiding frequent changes in the residence of the children affecting the factor of their domicile which is relevant in educational matters. He referred to the fact that his wife's parents were also settled in Pune and hence, he bonafide required the premises for the residence of his children and wife at Pune. He reference to the fact that he had tried to book a flat through the Army Housing Welfare Organization in Pune in 1979. But on account of certain financial difficulties he had to subsequently cancel his membership and got a refund of the amount of about Rs. 14,000/- which he had paid to the sad organization towards the instalment of the price of a flat at a somewhat remote place at Kondhwa.