BABURAO SHANKAR MAHAJAN Vs. NARAYAN BALAJI BUDHKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, the correctness of the judgment and order dated 16/06/1988 of the District judge, Satara is called into question. The District Judge affirmed in the course of his judgment, a decree for eviction passed by the Civil Judge, junior Division, Karad, on 13/03/1985 under section 13 (1) (1) of the bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. Both the Courts below have concurred in coming to the conclusion that the tenant after coming into operation of the Act has built and acquired the vacant possession of a suitable residence.

(2.) THE suit premises consist of Block No. 5 out of C. T. S. No. 221/24 at karad City. The petitioner is a monthly tenant of the premises and the rent has been fixed at Rs. 20/- per month inclusive of water and electricity charges. A suit for eviction had been instituted on the ground that the defendant and one Rangubbhai had purchased on 26/12/1971 a plot in the Municipal limits of Karad City bearing Plot No. 435. It was alleged that on the plot, the petitioner constructed a building for residential use. The defendant filed his written statement admitting that he had purchased a plot as alleged. The case of the defendant, however, was that the structure which he had constructed was a shed which was not fit for residential purpose and that it did not have the necessary amenities. On behalf of the plaintiff-landlord, evidence was adduced of the plaintiff and of a tenant, one abaji Badekar, who had resided in the premises which had been constructed by the petitioner from 1979 until1984 on a monthly rent of Rs. 65/ -. The name of this tenant was also shown in the Municipal extract. On the evidence which was adduced before it, the Trial Court held that the landlord had established a ground for eviction in that the tenant had purchased a plot of land upon which he had constructed four rooms for his own residence.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged the following submissions : (i) Save and except for the entry in Exh. 21 which was the Municipal extract, there was no evidence that the premises which had been constructed by the petitioner were in occupation of any tenant; (ii) That there was neither any electricity, nor any bathroom facility in the premises; (iii) The building which had been constructed by the petitioner was only a shed; and (iv) The payment of Nazarana in pursuance of the N. A. permission which was granted in 1971 was effected by the petitioner only in 1987 and, therefore, on the date of the institution of the suit in 1977, the premises were not suitable for residential use. These submissions may now be considered.