LAXMAN N DESHMUKH Vs. MADHUKAR B DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner instituted Regular Civil Suit 394 of 1983 for possession. CTS No. 269 at Bhavani Peth, Satara belongs to the satara Municipality. The Municipality let out the open space to several persons for carrying on business. The suit property, bearing CTS No. 269/6, admeasures 9 ft. by 9 ft. and was let out by the Municipality prior to 1960 to Dadu Shripati pawar who constructed a shed thereon. The petitioner purchased the shed on 15th september, 1966 and since then conducted a cycle repair shop. The petitioner initially paid rent in the amount of Rs. 8.90 to the Municipality which was increased to Rs. 12/- and thereafter, from 1975, to Rs. 15/ -. The respondent is related to the petitioner and it was the contention of the petitioner that the respondent was engaged to work in the cycle repair shop. On receipt of a notice from the Municipality for the payment of the rent and taxes, the petitioner claimed to have paid an amount of Rs. 200/- on 15th March, 1975. The respondent is alleged to have illegally entered his name in the Municipal records and the petitioner thereupon filed a complaint on 29th March, 1977. By a resolution dated 25th June, 1977 the Standing Committee was of the view that the petitioner was the tenant of the suit property. By a resolution dated 21st november, 1980 the petitioner was directed by the Municipality to approach the civil Court to establish his right, title and interest. A suit came to be instituted before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara for possession.

(2.) The respondent contested the suit and it was his case that he had purchased the shed from the petitioner upon which he was paying rent of Rs. 25/- per month to the Municipality. Hence, the respondent contended that he was lawfully carrying on business in the premises.

(3.) The suit instituted by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal by the petitioner (Regular Civil Appeal 600 of 1986) was allowed by the additional District Judge, Satara on 19th March, 1990. The respondent was directed to handover possession of the suit shed to the petitioner within three months of the date of the order. Among the issues, the second issue framed by the Additional District Judge was whether the petitioner was a tenant of the open space bearing CTS 269/6 and whether he had constructed a shed thereon. This issue was answered in the affirmative. The Additional District Judge noted that it was not disputed that the shed originally belonged to the petitioner. The respondent, it was held, failed to establish that he had purchased the shed. There was no evidence either of the purchase or payment of consideration of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner as alleged. On the other hand, the Municipality had passed a resolution that the petitioner was a tenant and that the shed belonged to the petitioner. The suit was accordingly decreed.