HEMANT BHARAT KACHARE Vs. VASU ANNA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 16/2/1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune allowing Civil Appeal No.564/1996 and setting aside the eviction decree dtd. 30/3/1996 passed by the 3rd Additional Small Causes Court, Pune. The Appellate Court has dismissed Civil Suit No.253/1994 filed by Petitioner-Plaintiff seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises. Petitioner-landlord has accordingly filed the present petition challenging the decree passed by the Appellate Court on 16/2/1999.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that Plaintiff has inherited house property bearing CTS No.39/1 on Karve Road, Pune. Premises comprising a hall, tin shed adjoining the hall, kitchen and front open space totally admeasuring 1280 sq. ft. are the suit premises in which Defendant was inducted as a tenant under the Rent Agreement dtd. 1/4/1982. After his induction in the suit premises, Defendant commenced restaurant business therein. According to Plaintiff, Defendant started making permanent changes, alterations and erecting permanent structures in the suit premises. The Municipal Corporation therefore issued notice to the Defendant for demolition of unauthorized additions and alterations. Defendant filed Regular Civil Suit No.1191/1993 against Pune Municipal Corporation seeking injunction against demolition of such additions and alterations. The Suit came to be dismissed on 28/9/1993. Civil Appeal No.833/1993 preferred by Defendant-tenant was also dismissed by the District Court on 11/11/1998.

(3.) In the above background, Plaintiff served notice dtd. 7/6/1989 to Defendant alleging putting up unauthorized construction in the suit premises and demanding possession hereof. The notice was replied by the Defendant denying the allegations. Plaintiff thereafter instituted Civil Suit No.253/1994 in the Court of Small Causes at Pune seeking recovery of the suit premises on the ground of making permanent alterations and construction in the suit premises without landlord's consent. The suit was resisted by Defendants by filing Written Statement denying any additions and alterations and contending that the suit premises remained in the said condition as they were let out since inception. Based on the pleadings, the Small Causes Court framed the issue of unauthorized additions and alterations in the suit property. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Small Causes Court proceeded to decree the suit holding that the Defendant had constructed permanent structure in the suit premises without landlord's consent. The Defendant was directed to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff. Defendant filed Civil Appeal No.564/1996 challenging eviction decree dtd. 30/3/1996 before the District Judge, Pune. The Appellate Court has allowed Defendants' Appeal and has reversed the eviction decree by its judgment and order dtd. 16/2/1999. Plaintiff's suit for eviction is accordingly dismissed by the Appellate Court. Aggrieved by dismissal of his suit by the Appellate Court, Plaintiff has filed the present petition. By order dtd. 2/8/2000, this Court admitted the petition. The petition is called out for final hearing.