SHANKARRAO RANGNATH GHODAKE Vs. RAMCHANDRA BAPU KOPARDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION along with the Civil Applications have been disposed of by this common order. The petitioner herein since deceased and now represented by L.Rs. was the original defendant.

(2.) THE respondent herein had filed a suit against the petitioner herein for his eviction on the ground that the petitioner was in default of arrears of rent for more than six months and further that he requires the premises for his bona fide personal occupation and that greater hardship would be occasioned to him than to the tenant petitioner. The trial Court framed issues for determination. Insofar as bona fide personal requirement is concerned, though the issue wrongly shows as answered in the affirmative, a perusal of paragraph 10, shows that while answering issue No. 2 the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the original plaintiff had failed to make out case of personal bona fide requirement. However, insofar as ground of arrears of rent for more than six months answered the issue in the affirmative.

(3.) IT is this order which is the subject matter of the present petition. At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the petitioner, it is pointed out that from Civil Application No. 977 of 2001 which is an application by the L.Rs. of original plaintiff, that it appears that the original plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 20-7-1993 sold to respondent No. 1(g) the suit premises for the consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. It is further set out that all the other heirs had given their consent to the said transactions. Hence, respondent No. 1(g) is only entitled to prosecute the matter pending in the High Court. In view of that, relief sought for in the application is that the respondent No. 1(g) be treated as heir of the deceased defendant and record be amended accordingly. There is also prayer that the bona fide requirement of Shriniwas respondent No. 1(g) be also considered. In view of that it is contended that as the original plaintiff had sold the premises to respondent No. 1(g), respondent No. 1(g) could not have maintained the present proceedings on the ground of arrears of rent. Reliance is placed on the judgement in the case of N.M. Engineers and others v. Narendra Singh Virdi and another, 1994(2) RCR(Rent) 453 (SC) : A.I.R. 1995 SC 448, in support of that proposition.