VASANT SHANKAR CHOUDHARI Vs. LAXMAN BALAJI AMBORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-landlords suit for possession of the rented premises which was decreed by the trial Court for possession, arrears of rent and costs of the suit, came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court in appeal under a decree dated 17th January, 1981. Having felt aggrieved by that decision, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) AN open plot admeasuring about 20 ft. x 12 ft. and bearing House No. 988/2 of Kopargaon was let out to the original respondent Laxman Balaji Ambore, sometime in 1945, on a monthly rent of Rs. 3. 50 ps. According to the petitioner-plaintiff, the original defendant Laxman Ambore had made a permanent construction on the suit property without permission of the landlord and had, thus, lost his right to continue on the premises, in view of the provisions contained in section 13 (1) (b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (in short, the Bombay Rent Act ). It was also contended that the petitioner-plaintiff required the said plot reasonably and bona fide for construction of a new building thereon and that, therefore, the tenant was bound to deliver the possession of the plot to the petitioner under section 13 (1) (i) of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial Court had found favour with the petitioners case on both points but, had negatived the case made out by the petitioner on the ground of default. Holding that the tenancy was terminated by valid notice, the learned trial Judge had decreed the suit for possession along with arrears of rent, mesne profits, costs of the suit etc.

(3.) IN Appeal No. 96 of 1980 filed in the District Court, Ahmednagar, the learned Assistant Judge held that the property leased out was an open plot and that the tenant, on his own admission, had made a construction on the suit property. He did not record a finding that any written permission of the landlord was obtained for making the construction. But, it was contended that the construction was made by the tenant soon after he had taken the plot on lease. The learned Appellate Judge, therefore, held that the conduct of the plaintiff showed that he had not taken any action immediately after the structure was built and that, therefore, the landlord was not entitled to get a decree for possession. The learned Appellate Judge found that the petitioner-plaintiff had made out a case of reasonable bona fide requirement of the landlord for the use of the suit premises. He found that the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that the premises were required for construction of a new building, was not satisfactorily, proved. Therefore, he negatived the case of the plaintiff-petitioner on that count also. Consequently, the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside after allowing the appeal and the suit was dismissed with costs throughout.