SURYAKANT VISHVANATH KAMBLE Vs. BABULAL VISHWANATH VETAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution by the original plaintiff seek to challenge the appellate decrees passed in the tenants' appeals preferred against the trial Court's decrees respectively passed against them.

(2.) The plaintiff's claim for possession was based on section 13 (1)(hh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act"). The trial Court decreed the suits. The tenants challenged the said decrees. Their appeals succeeded. The decrees passed by the trial Court were set aside and the suits dismissed. Hence these petitions.

(3.) Hearing rival submissions of the learned Counsel and going through the judgment of the two Courts below, one finds this not to be a case where one can say that there is any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Indeed, the Appellate Court has, in its. well-reasoned and well-considered judgment with reference to the oral and documentary evidence on record and also with reference to the plan of the proposed new construction, came to a finding to the effect that the plaintiff has failed to establish the several vital and essential ingredients in a claim for possession under section 13(1) (hh) of the Rent Act. It has been found that the number of tenements in the proposed new construction is far less than the statutory requirement of twice the number of residential tenements. It has also been found that the door area of the proposed new construction is far less than the statutory requirement of twice the existing area.. Still further, the plan produced before the Court and considered in detail by the Appellate Court shows that on the ground floor of the proposed new construction, commercial user is intended, viz , shops and godown's, and on the first floor, one self-contained flat is intended. Thus, if we go by the general concept of a tenement as a unit, there are only two shop units on the ground floor and one residential unit on the first floor. The existing residential tenements are, admittedly, seven in number. Considering the plan and the nature and character thereof, it immediately becomes obvious that in lieu of the existing seven residential tenements, there would be in the new construction only one residential tenement when the law requires at-least fourteen residential tenements. It, thus, seems clear that the intention of the landlord is to demolish the existing structure, dis-house the present tenants, put up a new construction in accordance with the plan (Exhibit 41) on record and leave these existing tenants in the lurch. It is obvious from this plan (Exhibit 41) that it is impossible to provide the existing seven tenants with a tenement each in the new construction. On this short ground itself, the decrees of the Appellate Court deserve to be confirmed.