VIMAL BALKRISHNA KHARAT Vs. MAHESH HOLARAM MOTWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petitioner-landlord has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the judgment and order dated 10th August, 1999, passed by the additional District Judge, Pune (for short "appellate Court") , whereby, the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Small Causes court, Pune (for short "trial Court") in Regular civil Suit No. 622 of 1996 was set aside. Resultantly, the suit filed by the petitioner- landlord stood dismissed. Therefore, the present Writ Petition.

(2.) The premises in question is a shop admeasuring 6' X 10' situated on ground floor at Pimpri, Pune. On 1/4/1977, the petitioner's husband let out the suit premises to respondent No. 1 Ramesh by a leave and licence agreement. On 1st April, 1978, on the same terms, the agreement was renewed only in favour of respondent No. 1. Respondent no. 2, who is the brother of respondent No. 1, was conducting the business in the premises along with respondent No. 1.

(3.) On 13th September, 1995, petitioner's husband expired. As the widow- petitioner required the suit premises for earning her livelihood, she requested respondent No. 1 to hand over the possession and accordingly, on 17th June, 1996, a notice was issued terminating the tenancy and also for payment of arrears of rent. The respondents resisted the said notice by reply dated 30th July, 1996, and refused to hand over the possession. The petitioner, therefore, filed Suit No. 622 of 1996 in the Trial Court on 19th August, 1996, and prayed for possession on the ground of subletting by respondent No. 1 to respondent no. 2, default in payments of rent and bonafide need for herself and for her sons. The respondents, by a Joint Written Statement dated 4th February, 1997, resisted the said suit and the contentions raised therein. The parties led evidence. The Trial Court, by the judgment and order dated 26th June, 1997, granted the decree on the ground of subletting and default. However, the Trial Court negatived the claim of bonafide need. The respondents, therefore, preferred an Appeal in the Appellate Court. After considering the rival contentions, the appellate Court, on 10th August, 1999, allowed the Appeal and dismissed the suit on all grounds.