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.) SHRI A.B. Gatne, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the landlord had retired from the Army on 1 -1 -1982 and the application filed in the year 1989 is beyond the period of limitation as prescribed by the statute. He further submitted that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner -tenant and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the competent authority for giving further opportunity to the tenant to examine himself and to adduce evidence. Shri Gatne further contended that the subsequent judgment of the competent authority dated 31 -12 -1990 is not a judgment at all since he has not considered the fact and the evidence afresh after the plaintiff was cross -examined. If a case is restored, the Presiding Officer cannot again refer to the earlier judgment and say that no circumstances have been pointed out to change the earlier judgment. In support of this contention. Shri Gatne pointed out the observation in the judgment by the competent authority that there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion or findings already arrived before. Shri Gatne also contended that the necessary finding that the disputed premises in required by the landlord for his bona fide personal use has not been arrived at on consideration of any cogent evidence before the Competent Authority. In fact, the landlord has failed to prove his bona fide need and the petition should have been dismissed even in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the tenant. Shri D.A. Gursahani, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent landlord, submitted that there is no limitation prescribed for an application under section 13 -A1 of the Bombay Rent Act and the landlord has given enough evidence to enable Competent Authority to come to conclusion that he bona fide requires the premises and findings recorded in a summary proceeding like this, need not be gone into and reversed in revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the Bombay Rent Act.