BHARAT AGENCIES Vs. VALLABHDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGULAR Civil Suit No.259/1995 filed by respondents (original plaintiffs No.1 to 3) was dismissed by the 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule on 5.10.2009. The Civil Appeal 129/2009 carried to the Principal District Judge, Dhule by the respondents came to be allowed and petitioner (original defendant) - the tenant has been directed to vacate the suit premises vide orders dated 2.3.2013. Thus, this revision application has been filed by the petitioner. The suit has been decreed on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Rent Act" for short). (I will refer to respondent No.3 as plaintiff No.3 and the petitioner as defendant for the sake of convenience).

(2.) SUIT premises is situate on the Agra Road in Dhule in property City Survey No.1437. On ground floor facing East, there is shop which runs 20 ft. east -west and has frontage of 12 ft. running north -south. Inside, towards west, there is yet another room of 12 ft. x 12 ft. Such premises are on rent with the defendant where he is running shop of agricultural equipments and pesticides and insecticides in the name and style of "Bharat Agencies".

(3.) THE defendant contested the suit and it has been claimed that the plaintiff No.3 had good job in Videocon Company and for no reasons he left the same in order to get possession of suit premises. Plaintiff has alternative convenient premises for running his business. Defendant would face great hardship as he has been running business for last 30 -32 years in the suit premises. On 18.5.1997, the plaintiff had given advertisement in daily newspaper "Apla Maharashtra" for letting out on rent back side portion of C.T.S. No.1437 for coaching classes. The plaintiff could have very well run the electronics business from that premises. Plaintiff has another C.T.S. No. 1351 at Nagarpatti, but the same has been let out to one Dr. B.B. Patil in 1997. R.C.S. No.337/1994 (should be 387/1994) to get premises vacated has been filed against Dr. Patil and even that premises is available to plaintiff. Suit has been filed against Bharat Agencies, but what is Bharat Agencies is vague.