HIRALAL DAGDULAL PAGARIA Vs. VASANTLAL HARIDAS BHANUSHALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This proceeding is filed against the judgment and order of Rent Suit No.10 of 2005 and Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2013. The suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad and the decision given in favour of the landlord was challenged in the District Court Aurangabad. The suit for relief of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use of the landlord and on the ground of default was decreed by the trial Court. Relief of recovery of arrears of rent was also given. In appeal filed by the tenant, the judgment and decree given on the ground of default is set aside but remaining decision is confirmed by the appellate Court. Both sides are heard.

(2.) The suit was filed under section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999. The property bearing CTS No.8956 and Municipal No.4-17-72 admeasuring 78.34 square meters situated at Juna Mondha Aurangabad is involved in the matter. This property is in the possession of present applicants. The property was previously owned by one Shri. Shroff. It is contended that on monthly rent of Rs.1000/- the property was given to the applicant by said Shroff. Present respondent, landlord, purchased the property from Shroff on 9-12-2002. It is contended that both, the landlord and the previous owner, had informed the present applicants about the said transaction. It is contended that present respondent had given notice on 27-12-2004 to the tenant and he was asked to pay arrears of rent and he was asked to vacate the premises as landlord wanted the premises bona fidely for personal use for starting business of his younger son. It is contended that the defendant is living in Pune and he is not using the suit premises. It is also contended that the premises is in dilapidated condition. Statutory notice was issued to the tenant. Notice was received by the tenant on his address from Pune though the notice sent at address of tenanted premises was returned.

(3.) The defendant admitted in the written statement that he lives in Pune. He further admitted that he was not doing any business in the suit property. He however denied that the previous landlord had given him intimation of the aforesaid transaction. He denied that the notice of eviction was served on him. He has specifically contended that the suit property was not in his possession. In view of this defence, the defendant contended that there was no question of giving eviction decree against him.