NIVRITTI BALWANT MORE Vs. DIGAMBER RAMCHANDRA GADEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent, who is the original plaintiff, is a Reader in Geology at Baroda University. The dispute relates to House No. 885/5 situate at Shivaji Nagar, Pune-4. Originally Eastern Block in the said house was requisitioned by the State Government and allotted to the father of the respondent who was working as an Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Maharashtra State. Ultimately after the death of his father the respondent became a tenant of the said block. In 1963 the respondent purchased the said house from the previous owner Mr. Khare. The present petitioner Nivritti Balwant More is the tenant of the Western Block of said house from 1958.

(2.) On 5-6-1972 the respondent purported to terminate the petitioner's tenancy and filed a Civil Suit, being Civil Suit No. 3416 of 1972 in the Small Causes Court at Pune for eviction on the ground (1) that the respondent required the said premises reasonably and bona fide for his own personal use and (2) that the petitioner had constructed an unauthorised permanent construction in the suit premises and that greater hardship would be caused to the respondent if a decree of eviction was not passed than to the tenant if a decree of eviction were passed. The suit of the respondent was decreed by the Small Causes Court at Pune on the two grounds averred by the respondent. An appeal was preferred by the present petitioner before the District Court at Pune, being Civil Appeal No. 536 of 1977. The learned Judge reversed the finding given by the trial Court on the ground of bona fide requirement of the respondent in respect of the suit premises. But it held that the petitioner had acquired suitable alternative accommodation. The Appellate Court also confirmed the finding of the trial Court on the question of the petitioner having made an unauthorised permanent construction. In the result the decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed by the Appellate Court. From this judgment and order which is dated 24-4-1981 the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant.

(3.) Both the courts below have held that the petitioner has, without the landlord's consent, erected on the premises a permanent structure. The Appellate Court has held that in the suit premises when they were let out to the petitioner, there was a verandah consisting of a wall 3 ft. in height with grill attached to the wall which covered the front portion. The petitioner has removed the grill as well as the wall which was 3 ft. in height and has constructed instead a complete wall, in the wall two windows have been fixed with grills. This finding of fact has been arrived at by both the Courts on the basis of evidence which was led before the trial Court including the evidence of the former landlord Mr. Khare. It is not possible for me in a writ petition under Art. 227 to go behind the finding of fact which has been given.