VENKATESH VITTHAL MADAM Vs. BALAJI DNYANOBA JANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-tenant has filed this Petition challenging the decree dtd. 16/7/2022 passed by the District Judge-20, Pune, dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No. 339 of 2017 and confirming the eviction decree dtd. 3/4/2017 passed by the 6th Addl. Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, in Civil Suit No. 206 of 2010. The Trial Court has decreed Plaintiff's Suit for recovery of possession on the ground of erecting permanent construction without landlord's consent. Since the decree for eviction is confirmed by the Appellate Court, Petitioner -tenant has filed the present Petition challenging the decrees of the Trial and the Appellate Courts.

(2.) House Property bearing C.T.S. No. 63 (new) of Mahatma Phule Peth and C.T.S. No. 781(old) of Ganja Peth admeasuring 48.8 sq. meters within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation are the suit premises. The suit premises originally belonged to Rizwani Masjid Trust and the same was purchased by late Shri Vyankatesh Ashanna Bhandari vide registered Sale Deed dtd. 30/7/1979. Defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit premises by the Trust. After purchase of the suit premises by late Shri Vyankatesh A. Bhandari, he filed Suit in the Small Causes Court against Defendant No. 1 and others on 16/6/1980 for recovery of possession, which came to be dismissed on 18/12/1982. Late Shri Vyankatesh A. Bhandari filed Appeal before the District Court, which was dismissed on 20/12/1984. He therefore filed Writ Petition No. 3211 of 1985 in this Court in which this Court passed order dtd. 24/7/1997 remanding the Suit for fresh decision on the issue of bonafide requirement. Late Shri Bhandari filed Special Leave Petition No. 18005 of 1999 before the Supreme Court, which was withdrawn seeking direction for decision of the Suit within a period of six months. Accordingly, Suit No. 1305 of 1980 was decided again on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement and the same was decreed in favour of Late Shri Bhandari on 29/7/2002. Defendant No. 1 filed Civil Appeal No. 625 of 2002 before the District Court, which was allowed in favour of Defendant No. 1. During pendency of the Civil Appeal No. 625 of 2002 late Shri Bhandari passed away. His daughters finally decided to dispose of the suit premises. According to Defendant No. 1, daughters of late Shri Bhandari requested Defendant No. 1 to purchase the suit premises and it was agreed to purchase the same by Defendant No. 1 for Rs.3,90,000.00. That Defendant No. 1 had kept earnest money deposit of Rs.90,000.00 ready. However, the suit premises came to be sold in favour of Respondent No. 1-Balaji Dnyanoba Jana (Plaintiff in Suit No. 206 of 2010) by the heirs of late Shri Bhandari vide registered Sale Deed dtd. 31/7/2007.

(3.) After purchase of the suit premises, Plaintiff filed Suit No. 206 of 2010 against Defendant No. 1 and several other persons seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises alleging that Defendants illegally carried out construction of bathroom and latrine in the suit premises without obtaining permission of the landlord as well as removed existing windows on the eastern wall and unauthorisedly constructed a new window on the south east corner of the said wall. That two additional windows were constructed in the suit premises. Plaintiff accordingly sought recovery of possession of the suit premises from the Defendants with further direction to pay arrears of rent alongwith interest and expenses of Rs.5,323.00. The Suit was resisted by Defendant No. 1 by filing written statement. After receipt of the suit summons, Defendant deposited the entire arrears of rent alongwith 15% interest. Defendant No. 1 contended that the heirs of late Shri Bhandari had permitted him to put up a toilet in the suit premises since the Defendant No. 1 and his family members did not have any toilet facility. Defendant No. 1 denied removal of any window or putting up of new windows and submitted that existing windows were merely strengthened by him.