SHRIPAD VASUDEV VATVE Vs. NATHAR BHARGAV KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the original plaintiffs-landlords arising out of proceedings initiated by them for bonafide requirement of the premises in question under Section 13-A1 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 129 sq. ft. bearing C.T.S. No. 1370/A, situate 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 bonafide required by the members of his family. His family then consisted of his wife and two daughters then aged 8 and 6. Section 13-A1, which is a special provision meant for the benefit of the members of 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 13-A1(1)(A) was also challenged. The other two grounds under Sections 13(1)(k) and Section 13(1)(i) were also resisted by the respondent tenant.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the respondent - tenant preferred an Appeal to the District Court, Pune. The Appeal Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners had failed to prove that the respondent - tenant had acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence and hence, the landlords were not entitled to obtain possession under Section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act, Shri Karlekar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has not challenged the said findings in the petition before me as far as Section 13(1)(i) finding is concerned. The Appeal Court further held that the petitioners did require the premises bonafide for occupation by the members of the family of the first petitioner who is an Army officer. However, the learned District Judge took the view that on a true construction of the provisions of Section 13-A1 of the Bombay Rent Act since the petitioners had acquired the premises on 24th December, 1970 when the respondent was already in possession of the premises as a tenant and since, therefore, the petitioners had not inducted the respondent as a tenant in the suit premises the petitioners were not entitled to avail of the special remedy provided, under Section 13-A1 of the Bombay Rent Act. Relying upon the observations of this Court in the two decisions reported in 1979 Maharashtra Law Journal, page 125; 1979 Rent Control Journal Vol II, page 389, the learned District Judge took the view that the petitioners had with open eyes purchased the property which was occupied by the tenant and since they had purchased such a property they should not be allowed to disturb the tenant on the ground that they were entitled to special advantage by virtue of the provisions of Section 13-A1 of the Bombay Rent Act. Thus, though on the question of bonafide requirement the learned District Judge held in favour of the petitioners, only on the ground that the petitioners landlords had not themselves inducted the tenant, he held that they were not entitled to the special advantage conferred on them by Section 13-A1 of the Rent Act. The learned District Judge, therefore, allowed the tenant's Appeal and consequently dismissed the suit filed by the present petitioners. It is against this judgment that the petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.