RAMCHANDRA VISHNU PARANJAPE DR Vs. SHARAYU JUGALKISHORE GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17th October, 1989 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Pune, in Civil Revision Application No. 59 of 1987 from the order dated 26th June, 1987 passed by the IV Additional Small Cause Judge, Pune, in Misc. Application No. 387 of 1984, the original applicant has approached this Court. Initially the petition was filed against Smt. Shailaja Pant, Smt. Sharayu Gupta and Smt. Vijaya Ghaisas (respondents 1 to 3 respectively ). By order dated 26th July, 2001, the name of respondent 2 Smt. Sharayu Jugalkishore Gupta was retained as the respondent and the names of respondents 1 and 3 have been deleted from the array of the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner preferred an application in the Small Causes Court at Pune for fixation of standard rent of the premises being ground floor of House No. 200, Narayan Peth, Pune 30 (for short the suit premises ). In the said application, one Dr. Smt. Chaplabai R. Khadilkar was opponent 1 and her 3 daughters, viz. Smt. Shailaja Prakash Pant, Smt. Sharayu Jugalkishore Gupta and Smt. Vijaya Suresh Ghaisas were opponents 2, 3 and 4, respectively. It was the case of the petitioner that Dr. Smt. Khadilkar was carrying on medical practice in the suit premises. Due to her advanced age and as her husband was working at Delhi, she stopped her practice in or about 1971-72 and since then the said premises were kept vacant by the opponents. In or about 1973, the petitioner who has done his M. D. in Radiology was in dire need of some premises to start his x-ray clinic. He, therefore, approached Dr. Smt. Khadilkar for letting out the said premises to him. She agreed. She insisted that the petitioner will have to pay monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- plus education cess plus electrical charges of Rs. 30/ -. In order to circumvent the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. Dr. Smt. Khadilkar insisted that the suit premises will be given to him only if he entered into an agreement of leave and licence. The petitioner had no other alternative but to sign the leave and license agreement though the actual relationship between the petitioner and Dr. Smt. Khadilkar was that of tenant and landlady. It was further stated in the application that the petitioner had carried out additions and alterations as stipulated by Dr. Smt. Khadilkar and incurred expenditure of Rs. 20,000/- and that he was put in exclusive possession of the suit premises and since the rent was excessive, the application for standard rent was being preferred.

(3.) TO this application, Dr. Smt. Khadilkar filed her written statement denying the contentions of the petitioner. Her case, inter alia, was that she was conducting her medical profession in the suit premises since 1947 and had contributed substantial amount for development of the said premises. In the year 1973, the said property was gifted by her husband Shri R. K. Khadilkar to her daughters, who were opponents 2, 3 and 4 in the said application. Her daughters allowed her to continue her practice. They gave her general power of Attorney to manage the property. It was further stated that as Dr. Smt. Khadilkar was required to go to Delhi, on and off, she intended to entrust her flourishing business to a promising young person. The petitioner after coming to know this fact, met Dr. Smt. Khadilkar at Delhi and on recommendation of Dr. Mrs. Coyaji, a close friend of hers. Dr. Smt. Khadilkar entrusted the said business to the petitioner for conducting it. Dr. Smt. Khadilkar had not stopped her medical practice but she was actively carrying on the same. The place had acquired a reputation and goodwill due to her 30 years flourishing practice and with this goodwill, the petitioner obtained better business. She contended that the agreement of leave and licence was executed by the petitioner with full knowledge of its meaning and consequences. She maintained that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the petitioner.