VAMANRAO VISHWANATH FALKE Vs. ANUSAYA RANGRAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed by the original plaintiff and challenges the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, pune, (Appellate Court) dated 4/2/1992, whereby, the respondents' appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, (trial Court) , dated 11/7/1986 in R. C. S. No. 20/1981 r/w M. A. No. 771/1980 was set aside. In the result suit filed by the petitioners-landlord was dismissed.

(2.) The premises in question consists of two rooms, admeasuring 10' X 12", situated House No. 331 at Peth Parvati Sahakar No. 1. The petitioner being owner preferred the present suit for recovery of the possession of the premises in question on the foundation that, the father of the respondents, 2 to 4 and the husband of the respondent No. 1, was the original tenant of the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- plus other charges. The original tenant expired in the year 1977, since then the respondents have been occupying the suit premises in the capacity, as legal heirs of the deceased tenant. The rents were not paid regularly, including the other charges. They were in arrears of rent. It is also alleged that the respondents have caused nuisance and they have also acquired the alternate accommodation for their residence at Dashbhuja Ganpati. The notice was served on them dated 13/8/ 1980. Based upon the same, the present suit was filed. The same was resisted by filing Written statement. The contentions were denied. The Misc. Application no. 771 /1980 for the fixation of standard rent was also filed. The learned trial judge after considering both the matters and going through the documents on the record, held that the petitioner proved that the original defendants-respondents have acquired alternative suitable accommodation for their residence and they are in arrears of rent. Therefore, decree was passed. The same was reversed by the Appellate Court by allowing the appeal filed by the tenant and dismissed the suit.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Rajure, appearing for the petitioner. I have noted the submissions made in the matter. None appeared for the respondents, though served.