LAWS(BOM)-1984-8-1

GOVINDRAO NARAYANRAO PRABHU Vs. SHANKARRAO MARUTI GAWALI

Decided On August 14, 1984
GOVINDRAO NARAYANRAO PRABHU Appellant
V/S
SHANKARRAO MARUTI GAWALI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Suit No. 1935 of 1979 had been filed by the respondent in the Small Causes Court at Pune against the petitioner who is his tenant, for possession of one room consisting of 1 Khans. The said room will hereinafter be referred to as "the suit premises". The petitioner is the tenant of the said room for several years on a monthly rent of Rs. 20. The respondent filed a suit as aforesaid on the ground, among others, that he required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation.

(2.) The petitioner resisted the suit by contending that the respondents need was neither reasonable nor bona fide and that greater hardship would be caused to him if a decree for possession were passed than the hardship that would be caused to the respondent if a decree for possession were refused. The learned trial Judge by his judgment and order dated 28th of September, 1981 dismissed the suit by holding against the respondent on all grounds. It may be added that the respondent had also pleaded in the trial Court that the petitioner had acquired suitable alternative residence which ground was also pressed in support of the claim for possession of the suit premises. The learned trial Judge had held against the respondent on all the grounds.

(3.) The respondent preferred an appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 903 of 1981, which was heard and allowed by the learned Extra Joint Judge of Pune by his judgment and order dated 6th August, 1983. While so allowing the appeal, the learned Appellate Judge found fault with the reasoning of the learned trial Judge who had held that the accommodation which was available to the petitioner during the pendency of the suit was available to him only for a limited period and, therefore, if a decree for possession were passed greater hardship would be caused to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Appellate Judge the tenant has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.