JILAJEET SATYANARAYAN PANDEY Vs. CHANDRABALI RAJNARAYAN SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicants have invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set up a challenge to the judgment and decree dtd. 30/3/2024 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing Appeal No. 48/2013 and confirming the eviction decree dtd. 6/9/2013 passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in RA.E. Suit No.196/479 of 2003. The eviction of the Applicants is ultimately upheld by the Appellate Court on the solitary ground of bonafide requirement of the Plaintiff.

(2.) Facts of the case, as pleaded in the plaint, are that Plaintiff claims ownership in respect of the property bearing Stable No. 93, comprising of 30 Khilas, Godown 20 ft x 15 ft and an open space 15 ft x 20 ft, situated at Chandrabali Rajnarayan Shukla Stable, Pump House, Jijamata Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 (suit premises). The original Defendant was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises sometime in the year 1970. It appears that Plaintiff had earlier filed R.A.E. Suit No. 699/3681 of 1972 against the original Defendant for his eviction, but a settlement took place between the parties and accordingly fresh tenancy agreement dtd. 23/6/1984 was executed between them. Plaintiff instituted Suit being R.A.E. Suit No.196/479 of 2003 against the original Defendant alleging default in payment of rent, bonafide requirement of Plaintiff and his family members, commission of breach of terms and conditions of tenancy, nuisance and annoyance, erection of permanent structure without landlord's consent and unlawful subletting. Defendant appeared in the suit and filed written statement contesting the claim of the Plaintiffs. Based on the pleadings raised by the parties, the Trial Court framed issues. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. It appears that the plaint was amended alleging that newly added Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 (brothers of Defendants) were illegally and unauthorisedly occupying the suit premises and causing unauthorised construction thereon. That the premises were sublet by Defendant in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. That in the newly constructed room in the suit premises, some portion was illegally occupied by Defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7.

(3.) After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Small Causes Court proceeded to decree the suit by judgment and order dtd. 6/9/2013 by accepting only two grounds of Plaintiff viz. bonafide requirement and commission of breach of terms and conditions of tenancy. The grounds of nuisance/annoyance, erecting permanent structure without landlord's consent and unlawful subletting were however rejected. Defendants were directed to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff with further order of injunction restraining them from creating any third-party interests till delivery of possession. The Small Causes Court also directed a separate enquiry into mesne profits under the provisions of Order XX Rule 12 of the Code.