AMRUTLAL DEVICHAND JAIN Vs. NAGIBAI HARI THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the reversal of a decree passed in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the establishment of a ground under Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rent Act").

(2.) THE controversy arising for resolution in this petition has to be appraised in the following background : The premises in dispute consist of a tenement on the ground floor of Municipal House No. 14/11, Bazar Peth, Taluka Pen, District Raigad. This house formerly belonged to G.M. Kolhatkar, the original plaintiff. The suit tenement was let out to Hari Ramu Thakur, the deceased husband of the respondent. The tenant had agreed to pay a rental of Rs. 7 per month, exclusive of taxes. Hari expired sometime in the year 1973. In his life-time, he was running a tailoring business in the premises. That business was never carried on after Hari's demise. Hari is survived by respondent and four sons. Three of these sons are working as teachers, while the youngest is taking education. Before the institution of the suit by G.M. Kolhatkar on 4th September 1976, a notice terminating the tenancy of the respondent was given. In that notice, it was alleged that the tenement had not been used for the purpose for which it had been let out, viz. 'tailoring' and that the defendant had inducted a sub-tenant into the premises. The defendant replied refusing the allegations aforementioned. After the death of G.M. Kolhatkar the suit was continued in the name of his widow and two sons. During the pendency of the suit the heirs of G.M. Kolxhatkar sold building to the petitioners. Pursuant to this sale, the petitioners came on record.

(3.) RESPONDENT in her written statement denied the averments sumarried above. In relation to the plaint averment about the premises having been let out for running a tailoring business, there was no specific denial. However, there was a denial in relation to the correctness of the recitals appearing in para 3 of the plaint. These recitals related to the premises having been kept closed, this closure leading to dilapidation of the premises and resulting in damage to the owner. In the written statement, there is no specific pleading that the premises were taken for the composite object of running a business and residence. The written statement ended with the plea that the petitioners having failed to extract more rent in view of the strategic location of the suit premises, had sued to penalise her for the said refusal.