NARAYAN DAMODAR THAKUR Vs. MADANLAL MOHANLAL MALPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicants have filed this Revision Application challenging the decree dtd. 21/3/2024 passed by the District Judge-II, Panvel Raigad dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No. 189 of 2019 and confirming the decree dtd. 9/7/2013 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Panvel in Regular Civil Suit No. 51 of 2005. The Trial Court has decreed the suit filed by Respondent-Plaintiff and has directed the Applicants-Defendants to handover possession of the suit premises and to pay arrears of rent of Rs.11,928.00. An enquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is also directed to be conducted.

(2.) Facts of the case, as pleaded in the Plaint, are that Plaintiff is the owner of final Plot No. 233 and building constructed thereon, named 'Indu Smruti' within the limits of Panvel Municipal Corporation. Shop No. 1 situated on ground floor of the building admeasuring 14 ft x 9 ft are the suit premises in which the First Defendant was inducted as monthly tenant on rent of Rs.300.00 plus taxes of Rs.111.00 [total Rs.411.00]. That the suit premises are let out to the First Defendant vide Agreements dtd. 13/4/1981 and 15/2/1996 for operating grocery shop therein. That the First Defendant was using the suit premises for selling grocery items. However, since June 2002, the First Defendant shut his grocery shop from the suit premises and started a shop for retail and wholesale sale of grocery items at Tapal Naka, Panvel in his own structure, named 'Thakur Palace' on the ground floor. That on the date of filing of the suit, the First Defendant was operating his shop in Thakur Palace and was not conducting any business in the suit premises. That shop adjoining the suit premises is let out to the First Defendant's brother-Defendant No.2. That Defendant No.2 was using the suit premises without the consent and permission of the landlord. That though Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are brothers, suit premises are let out to the First Defendant in his individual capacity and that therefore the Second Defendant did not have any right to use the suit premises. That the First Defendant had sublet the suit premises to the Second Defendant, from whom he was accepting substantial rent and indulging in profiteering. That the Second Defendant had put a common signboard 'Prateek Kirana Store' on the suit premises, as well on his tenanted shop and the Second Defendant was using the suit premises for storing the goods meant to be sold in his shop. That this is how the Second Defendant was using the suit premises as a godown. That the internal door separating the two shops was shut and the same has been unauthorisedly opened by the Second Defendant for the purpose of using the suit premises. That open space in front of the suit premises was also being used by the Second Defendant to store his goods.

(3.) Plaintiff accordingly contended that the First Defendant- Tenant was not using the suit premises for the purpose for which the same was let and that therefore Plaintiff was entitled to seek recovery of possession of the suit premises. Plaintiff also pleaded his bonafide requirement in the Plaint. Plaintiff also contended that the First Defendant was in arrears of rent since December 2002. This is how the Plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 51 of 2005 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Panvel seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises from the Defendants for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.11,928.00 and for recovery of rent and damages of Rs.426.00 per month from the First Defendant from the date of filing of the suit.