ABDUL SATTAR JALALSHEN Vs. DULHANBAI ANWARKHAN PATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute, which is one of those usual between the landlord and tenant, pertains to the suit property bearing Municipal House No. 150 with City Survey No. 8089 within the city limits of Solapur comprising of three rooms owned by the petitioner herein, in which the respondent was inducted as a tenant on monthly rental of Rs. 40/-. In fact the total area of the premises consists of 5 rooms out of which one room was being utilised for running a small restaurant while one was being used by another tenant for running hair cutting saloon and remaining three rooms are in possession of the respondent. It is claimed that all the five rooms have become almost dilapidated so much so that their immediate demolition has become absolutely essential specially in view of the safety of immates in that behalf the notice has been issued by the Municipal Corporation as per Exhibit 40 on 23.6.1978. The petitioner landlord is running a restaurant in a small rented premises elsewhere in the said city while he was obliged to stay in a room in a house of his brother. The petitioner therefore, is desirous to demolish the premises and reconstruct the same whereafter he perhaps proposed to utilise the ground floor for the restaurant and first floor as residence as according to him the landlord the premises where he is running the restaurant has directed him to vacate the premises as also his brother has asked him to search for other accommodation and in addition one room tenement is hardly adequate for residential purpose. The petitioner desires to demolish the suit premises and reconstruct the same whereafter he proposes to use and occupy the same for his own purpose. The petitioner, therefore, issued a notice to the respondent on 27.8.1973 terminating the tenancy and claiming possession of the suit premises as also rental arrears. The failure on the part of the respondent to comply with the demand entailed in filing of civil suit in the Court of the Judge, Solapur, for possession of the suit premises.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the respondent on all counts. At the threshold she challenged the petitioner's claim that he is the owner of the property. According to her, she is in possession of seven rooms and not three rooms as such. It was also suggested that the petitioner got the possession of three other rooms which he deposed of. The petitioner's claim that he is under threat of eviction from the landlord of the premises which are being used by him as restaurant and he is asked to vacate the premises of his brother is also denied. She has even gone to the extent of suggesting that the premises are not dangerous for human dwelling. She thus challenged the petitioner's claim of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises for his personal use and occupation. She also disputed the correctness of the rent charged.

(3.) THAT decree was challenged by the respondent-tenant in Civil Appeal No. 141 of 1979 in the District Court at Solapur. The learned Assistant Judge endorsed the finding recorded by the trial Court under Section 13(1)(g) vis-a-vis bonafide and reasonable requirement of the plaintiff-landlord. However, disagreeing with the trial Court, the learned Assistant Judge held that greater hardship would be caused to the tenant if a decree for eviction is passed, and that is how the issue under Section 13(2) was decided in favour of the respondent tenant with the consequence that the decree of the trial Court was set aside only on that Court and, therefore, plaintiff's suit came to be dismissed. It is this decree that is being placed under challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the landlord original plaintiff.