VIJAYA ARUN BERI Vs. VIJAY WAMAN BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner/Tenant is challenging the Judgment and Decree dtd. 17/12/2002 passed by 11th Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 1062 of 1996, by which the appeal filed by Respondent/Landlord was allowed, thereby passing decree of eviction against the Petitioner. The Appeal-Court set aside the Judgment and Decree dtd. 22/7/1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon (Maval) in Regular Civil Suit No. 122 of 1994.

(2.) The dispute is arising out of provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('Bombay Rent Act' for short). The north-east side hall, kitchen and bed room of a bungalow on plot No.14, Municipal No. 270 (211), Survey No.70/3, City Survey Nos. 45, 46, 47 situated at Shri Datta Sahakari Grihrachana Sanstha (Teachers Society) Nangargaon, Lonavala, Taluka - Maval, District-Pune, is the 'suit premises'. The Petitioner is Defendant and Respondent is Plaintiff. The parties are referred to in their original capacity for convenience and better understanding.

(3.) The Plaintiff filed the said suit seeking eviction of the Defendant on the grounds of non-user and personal and bonafide requirement i.e. under Sec. 13(1)(k) and 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The case of the Plaintiff is that the suit premises was given on rent to the Defendant @ Rs.325.00 per month. That the Defendant does not use suit premises for her own residential use. That she was working with Railways and her husband was also resident of Mumbai. That Defendant only resided in suit premises occasionally once in 10 to 11 months during holiday or vacation. That the Plaintiff's family consists of 6 people and premises in their possession are only 3 rooms which are not sufficient. That the Plaintiff's children are of growing age and they need more area. That the Defendant will not suffer any inconvenience if she is required to vacate the suit premises. That the Plaintiff required suit premises for personal and family requirement.