GOPAL SHANKARLAL PARDESHI Vs. NARSAYYA SADASHIV YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court dated 07-10-1991 in Civil appeal No. 897 of 1987 ordering eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of change in user of the premises, breach of terms and conditions of the lease agreement and non-user of the premises for which they were let out. The trial Court by its judgment and order dated 29-07-1987 in civil Suit No. 2529 of 1983 had ordered the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of the agreement while rejecting the application for eviction on the ground of change of user of the suit premises and of bona fide need of the suit premises as the respondent-landlord had failed to establish his claim in that regard and more particularly the case of hardship in comparison to the one which the petitioner will suffer in case of his eviction from the suit premises.

(3.) Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner was granted lease of the suit premises as described in the rent note for the purpose of residence as well as for establishment of a sweetmart shop for a monthly rent of Rs. 30/ -. The suit premises comprised of the ground floor of the building, occupying an area of 764.25 sq. ft. On 13-12-1983 the respondent filed eviction suit against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had illegally started a cassette library instead of sweetmart business and thereby has changed the user of the premises contrary to the terms of the agreement of lease. The eviction was also sought for on the ground of bona fide need of the premises along with change in user of the premises. The claim of the respondent was contested by the petitioner and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court while rejecting the claim for bona fide need of the premises on failure of the respondent to prove greater hardship in comparison to the one which the petitioner may suffer if the decree for eviction is passed, allowed the claim for eviction only on the ground of breach of condition of the agreement in as much as that the suit premises were used for the business other than permitted under the lease agreement and decreed the suit in terms of the provisions of law contained in Section 12 (1) of the Bombay rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act". The claim regarding change of user of the suit premises was however rejected by the trial Court. The petitioner being aggrieved by the decree of eviction filed the appeal which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment not only confirming the finding regarding breach of condition but simultaneously decreeing the eviction on the ground of change of user of the suit premises as well as non-user of the suit premises for which it was leased out, referring to the provision of law contained in section 13 (l) (a) and (k) of the said Act.