SHRIDHAR GOVIND Vs. ANKUSH KRISHNAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This petition was heard by me at length in order that the appellate order reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was seriously challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who is original defendant in the suit, on the ground that there was non-application of mind to the evidence on record and there was no legal admissible evidence to arrive at the finding. I have heard both the learned Counsel in detail for a long time. I am satisfied after going through the evidence, which was read out to me as if (this is) the First Appeal, that the finding recorded by the appellate Court seems to be not manifestly erroneous or otherwise perverse to attract the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Briefly stated, this was a simple case filed by the landlord against his tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Rent Act") for recovery of possession of the rented premises i.e. under S.13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The suit was filed on 7th Aug. 1967. The suit notice seems to have been given on 16th Nov. 1966, which was replied by the defendant on 6th Dec. 1966, to the original tenant who is the petitioner before me. It appears that the trial Court framed issues on 22nd Nov. 1974. Recording of evidence was started on 30th Jan. 1975 and concluded on 6th June, 1975.

(3.) The plaintiff averred in his plaint that he along with his family members is residing in Kubal Nivas. He is the owner of the building named "Krishna Kripa" and it is in this building that the disputed premises room No. 7 on the first floor is situated. This room No. 7 has got front and back side galleries. Defendant is a monthly tenant of the suit premises. Rent of the suit premises is Rs. 26.63, inclusive of all permitted increases, per month. It was stated by the plaintiff that he requires the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for personal occupation of his family members. The present premises which he is occupying are inadequate as his family is so large. It was also stated by the plaintiff that the defendant has unlawfully sublet the suit premises. It was further stated that the defendant has unauthorisedly constructed bath room in the rear side gallery of the suit premises and obtained a water tap therein without the permission of the plaintiff. It is averred that both the common galleries are unauthorisedly enclosed. Hence the suit was filed after giving notice as the defendant refused to vacate the same.