BHAGWAN TUKARAM PARADESHI Vs. VITTHAL NAMDEV VARJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who are the original plaintiffs instituted a suit for eviction against the respondent. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that they are the owners and landlords of a property bearing City Survey no. 359 which is an open plot admeasuring 102 square feet. The plot of land was let out to the defendant on a monthly rental of Rs. 40/- and a cess of rs. 2/ -. The respondent is stated to be carrying on the business of preparing wooden boxes for packing. The case of the petitioners is that they were residing in rented accommodation which is unsuitable and insufficient for their purposes. The suit for eviction was, thus, filed on the ground that the suit premises were required reasonably and bona fide for the purpose of constructing a house thereon for the residence of the petitioners. (An additional ground that there was a default in the payment of rent was also advanced. But on this, there is a finding by both the Courts negativating the case of the petitioners.) Insofar the first ground is concerned, viz. , that the premises were required by the petitioners for the construction of a residential building on the open plot of land, the suit came to be decreed by the IIIrd Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune by a judgment and order dated 24/02/1988. The judgment was, however, reversed in appeal on 13/07/1990 by the IVth Additional District Judge, Pune.

(2.) WHILE assailing the correctness of the view which has been taken by the Additional District Judge in appeal. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged that in the present case what is let out to the tenant was an open plot of land. The contentions of the petitioners was that the land was required by them for the construction of a building for their own residence. The case, therefore, would not be governed by the provisions of s. 13 (l) (g) but by s. 13 (l) (i) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House rates Control Act, 1947. Counsel urged that the suit was correctly decreed by the Trial Court on an appreciation of the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners. The fact that the petitioners are residing in tenanted accommodation was duly adverted to. The learned Trial Judge was satisfied that the requirement under s. 13 (l) (i) had been made out. Insofar as the judgment of the Additional District Judge is concerned, it is submitted that exfacie while in the initial part of the judgment the learned Judge proceeded on the basis of s. 13 (1) (i) being applicable, in the later part of the judgment, the learned Additional District Judge proceeded on the basis that the case under s. 13 (l) (g) had not been established. Moreover, Counsel urged that the appreciation of evidence in paragraph 10 of the plaint is perverse and called for the interference by this Court under art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the submission urged on behalf of the petitioners it is necessary, to advert to the provisions of ss. 13 (l) (g) and 13 (l) (i) respectively. Section 13 (l) (g) postulates a ground for eviction where the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for the occupation of himself or by any persons for whose benefit the premises have, been held. The expression "premises" is defined by s. 5 (8) to mean any land not being used for agricultural purposes; or, any building or part of a building or part of a building including the garden, grounds, garages and outhouses appurtenant thereto. Section 13 (l) (i) refers to a case where the premises are land and such land is reasonably and bonajide required by the landlord for the erection of a new building. The provisions of ss. 13 (l) (g)and 13 (l) (i) have been considered in a judgment of this Court in Sohansingh bharatsingh v. Narhar Narayan Godbole, The learned Single Judge held therein that in cls. (g) to (hhh) the word "premises" is used to denote a building or structure belonging to the landlord. As against this, in cls. (i)and (ii) of sub-s. (1) of s. (13) the import of the word "premises" is distinctly restricted to land. Thus in cls. (i) and (ii) the word 'land' must be construed to mean only open land without any structure of the landlord thereon.