RAMACHANDRA MADHAV DARUNKAR Vs. ABDUL SATTAR ISMAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Writ Petitions filed by the defendant and plaintiff respectively, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th june, 1988 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in regular Civil Appeal No. 415/1986. The appeal arose out of the judgment and decree dated 4-8-1986 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge. J. D. Ahmednagar in rcs No. 662/1976, which arose on the following facts.

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1a is the heir of deceased defendant in Writ Petition no. 1593/1988 whereas the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are original defendants Nos. 2 to 5. They will be referred to as their original status as "defendants". The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 56/1989 are the heirs of original plaintiff. They will be referred to as "the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner of House bearing no. 2418; City Survey No. 1146 situated at Ahmednagar (proper) (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises" ). It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit house was let out to defendant No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 26/- which started according to English calender. It is averred by the plaintiff that there was an agreement between the defendant and plaintiff to pay the rent every month regularly and, failure to do so, the defendant should vacate the suit house and hand over the possession of the same to the plaintiff. It was contended that the defendant No. 1 committed default and stopped payment of rent since January, 1968. After 31st August, 1985, the accumulate rent was Rs. 2,392/ -. Thereafter the rent was demanded by the plaintiff, however, the defendant on false pretext delayed the payment and ultimately refused to pay the same. It is further contended that the defendant No. 1 is not using the premises for the same purpose for which it was let out. It was contended that defendant No. 1 has sub-let the premises to defendant No. 2 to 4 and recovering exorbitant rent from them, thereby making profit out of it. It is further claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 has many premises of his own, at Ahmednagar for carrying on his business but, without vacating the suit house, he continued to occupy the same and thus, the defendant committed breach of the agreement and law and, as such, he has no right to remain in possession of the suit house. It was contended by the plaintiff that his sons are grown up and educated but are unemployed and the suit house is required for them to start the business of their own and thereby to earn livelihood. As such, the suit premises is required by the plaintiff for bona fide use. It is contended that the plaintiff and his family members are residing in rented house which is not sufficient to meet their need. It is contended that if eviction of defendant is ordered. No prejudice or hardship will be caused to him; however, if the decree is denied, it will cause greater hardship to the plaintiff.

(3.) IT is also contended that the defendant has erected a structure on the suit premises, that too without prior permission or consent of the plaintiff. The defendant has illegally constructed on the premises and that construction portion is being used as godown. It was contended that prior to erecting of the structure, no prior permission was sought from the plaintiff nor from the Municipal council. It was contended that the Municipal Council filed a case against the defendant for unauthorized construction. It was also averred that the conduct of defendant is troublesome, his behaviour is not proper due to which his occupying the suit premises, has become a great nuisance to the plaintiff.