RAMCHANDRA KERUJI DEOKAR Vs. RAGHUNATH SHANKAR BICHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Application raises a question whether there is any limitation prescribed for an application by a person retiring from the Armed Force for getting premises vacated from the possession of the tenant under section 13-A1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as `the Bombay Rent Act. Brief facts of the case are as follows.

(2.) THE landlord Raghunath Shankar Bichkar filed an application under section 13-A1 of the Bombay Rent Act before the Competent Authority at Nasik in which he contended that he is the landlord of House No. 144, City Survey No. 5978 situated at Sangale Lane in Ahmednagar town and defendant non-applicant Ramchandra Deokar is the tenant in occupation of a portion of the said premises. Rent agreed was Rs. 20/- plus Rs. 5/- as light charges per month. The tenant has not paid any rent since 1st January, 1982 (sic), after 22 years of service he would come back and settle down at Ahmednagar. Only two rooms are in his possession now and those will not be sufficient. He has a son of marriageable age and an ailing and aged mother. Therefore, premises in occupation of tenant will have to be get back by evicting him. It was also contended by the landlord that since he has served in the Army as an Officer, the present accommodation of two rooms only which he has, would not be sufficient and the accommodation in dispute will have to be added to the present accommodation. This Application No. 27 of 1989 was resisted by the tenant by filing a reply in the form of an affidavit on 6-9-1989. Non-applicant contended that the need of the applicant landlord is not bona fide one and proceedings have been initiated merely to get the rent increased.

(3.) ON 18-9-1989, issues were framed by the Competent Authority. On 24-12-1989 landlord came to be examined. On this day, tenant (petitioner before this Court) and his advocate both were absent. In view of this, a purshis was filed by applicant landlord that he does not wish to examine any other witness, a judgment came to be delivered by the Competent Authority allowing the application and directing tenant to deliver vacant possession of the disputed house vide his order dated 31-12-1990. It was further directed by the Competent Authority that Rs. 2,250/- be paid by the tenant to the landlord as damages in lieu of the rent and the tenant was further directed to pay Rs. 25/- p. m. as damages in lieu of the rent for period from 1st July, 1989 till he vacates the disputed premises. After this order was passed, applicant tenant appeared before the Competent Authority and prayed that ex parte order be set aside and he be allowed to take part in the proceedings. This application came to be allowed and later-on, the landlord gave further evidence and tenant was allowed to cross-examine and before the tenant could enter into the witness box, again the tenant and his advocate were absent in the proceedings. Competent Authority who had restored the Application No. 27 of 1989, delivered judgment again, allowed the application and directed possession of the disputed premises to the landlord alongwith the payment of the arrears of rent of Rs. 2,250/- and gave further direction about damages as already stated. This order passed on 31-12-1990 by the competent authority under the Bombay Rent Act, Nashik Division, Nashik has been challenged in this writ petition.