YESHAVADABAI SHANKAR DONGARE Vs. BHAGIRATHIBAI APPAJI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th March, 1983 passed by the learned II Extra Assistant Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal No. 226 of 1981 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29th September, 1980 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mangalwedha, in Regular Civil Suit No. 27 of 1974.

(2.) THE short facts of the present case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises bearing Municipal House No. 428 situated at Mangalwedha Town limit on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and greater hardship. The plaintiff has terminated tenancy of the appellants-defendants by issuing notice. The appellants-defendants contested the suit. It has been submitted that the appellants-defendants are tenants of the open land on the suit premises and they are running a flour mill thereon and they are entitled for the protection of the Bombay Rent Act. The provisions of the Bombay Rent Act are extended to Mangalwedha village by the Government Notification of 19-4-1956. After framing necessary issues and recording evidence of the parties, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit holding that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act are applicable to the suit property and further holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove her bona fide personal requirement and also failed to prove greater hardship as alleged in the plaint, by his judgment and decree dated 29th September, 1980. In appeal by the respondents-plaintiff against the trial Courts order, the learned Appellate Judge set aside the judgment and order of the trial Court holding that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act are not applicable to the suit property and, therefore, protection under the Rent Act is not available to the plaintiff and a decree for possession was passed. Hence this appeal by the appellants-defendants.

(3.) HEARD both the learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, learned Counsel for the appellants, emphatically submitted that a pure question of law has been involved in this appeal as regards the applicability of the Bombay Rent Act. It has been submitted that the learned appellate Judge has committed an error in holding that the Bombay Rent Act is not applicable to the instant case. It has been submitted that by Notification dated 19-4-1956 the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were made applicable to Mangalwedha village where the suit property is situated and by subsequent Notification dated 8-10-1959 the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were extended to Mangalwedha town. It has been submitted that Mangalwedha village has been merged with Mangalwedha Town Municipal Limits and the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act as per Notification of 19-4-1956 continued to be made applicable. The learned appellate Judge in paragraph 14 of his judgment has observed thus :