CHANDRAKANT GOVINDRAO SHINDE AND BALAJI NARASAPPA PEDRAM Vs. NALIAMMABAI NARSAPPA PADRAM AND CHANDRAKANT GOVINDRAO SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chandrakant Govindrao Shinde filed a suit for eviction against Balraj and others under sections 12(3)(a), 13-A 1 and 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. It was contended by the landlord that a demand notice was served on Narsappa, the original tenant, on 7-10-1976 under section 12(2) of Rent Act since he was in arrears of rent from 1-10-1973 to 30-9-1976. Inspite of this demand notice, the tenant filed to pay the amount due within a period of one month and, therefore, he was entitled to the possession of the suit property under section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. It was also contended by him that he was serving in the Air Force as a Flight Engineer and has retired from service on 27-5-1970 and thereafter required the suit premises for his own occupation. In support of this claim he also produced a certificate under section 13-A1 of the Rent Act. He also claimed possession under section 13(1)(g) of the Act since her required the premises reasonably and bona fide for his own occupation.

(2.) The claim of the landlord was resisted by the defendants. It was contended by the defendants that after the demand notice was received in October 1976, the original tenant Narsappa died on 28-2-1977 and the suit is filed on 16-7-1977. Under section 5(11)(c) the petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 634 of 1983 Balraj became the tenant of the suit premises. Admittedly, no notice was served upon him before instituting the suit and, therefore, the landlord is not entitled to get possession of the premises. It was also contended that the landlord did not required suit premises bona fide and reasonably for him own occupation.

(3.) In view of these pleadings the trial Court framed the necessary issues. The parties adduced evidence in support of their rival contentions. After appreciating all the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property under section 13-A1 of the Rent Act. It was also proved that he needs the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his own occupation. The learned Judge also found that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff if the decree for eviction is refused and no hardship would be caused to the defendants. The learned Judge also found that the tenant is a defaulter within the meaning of section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. Therefore, the learned Judge of the trial Court, by his judgment dated 7-2-1981 allowed the suit on all counts. He also passed a decree for an amount of Rs. 1,007/- towards the arrears of rent.