SHOBHA SATYANARAYAN BIRLA Vs. JANABAI PARSHURAM PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ). A suit for eviction was in the present case instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Phaltan on the ground of arrears of rent. The suit came to be decreed on 5/09/1986. The decree has been reversed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Satara on 20/03/1990.

(2.) THE only issue which arises in this proceeding and that has been urged before the Court is as to whether there is in fact a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. If such a relation does indeed exist, the decree for eviction has to be passed in the facts of this case on the ground of the non payment of rent. The suit has been instituted under the Rent Act and such a suit was therefore maintainable if. and only if. there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant. The suit, it must be emphasized, was not under the general law for the recovery of possession. Therefore, the answer to the question as to whether the Additional District judge was or was not correct in allowing an appeal against the decree for eviction turns on the question as to whether a relationship of landlord and tenant does in fact exist in this case.

(3.) THIS issue arises in circumstances which date back to 1925. The subject of the dispute is a residential house bearing house property No. 116. C. T. S. No. 8196 and C. T. S. No. 6219 of Shukrawar Peth, Phaltan. There is no dispute about the fact that the property originally belonged to a person by the name of Chunilal Marwadi. Chunilal Marwadi had four sons. Upon the death of Chunilal in or about 1949, the property was mutated in the names of his sons. By a Sale Deed dated 28/07/1996, the property was conveyed by the heirs of Chunilal to the petitioner's father Maniklal at and for a consideration of Rs. 1,500/- Maniklal in turn is stated to have sold the property to his daughter, the petitioner herein, at and for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- by a sale deed dated 21/06/1979. The case of the petitioner is that Chunilal had leased out the property to Parvatibai. Parvatibai expired on 23/09/1968. According to the petitioners, during the life time of Parvatibai, the Defendant was inducted as a subtenant and initially she did pay the monthly rent periodically to the petitioner's father. The case of the petitioner is that after she purchased the property on 21. 6. 79, the original Defendant Janabai had agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 50 per month. Initially, the Defendant did not pay the rent on account of financial difficulties and then stopped paying the rent. A notice was issued on 1. 2. 83 to which there was a reply dated 7. 2. 83 from the defendant. The suit came to be instituted on the ground of default in the payment of rent. A written statement was filed by the Defendant denying the allegations contained in the plaint.