RAMPYARI SURAJBALI SINCE DECD Vs. K C BORKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One K.V. Borkar owner of certain land at Borkar Wadi, Ranade Road, Dadar, Bombay-28, filed two suits. Both were eviction suits. One of them being RAE Suit No. 4563 of 1966. This was against two defendants viz., the tenant and the occupant. Both suits were decreed and respective appeals were also dismissed. The heirs of original defendant No. 2 in RAE Suit No. 4563 of 1966 have preferred this writ petition.

(2.) In RAE Suit No. 4563 of 1966 eviction of the defendant and the occupant was sought from an open plot of land admeasuring 10 X 25 on the basis that the plaintiff required the said open plot for erection of a new building. In other words, the landlord sought eviction under the provisions contained in section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act. It was agreed that evidence in both the suits, namely Suit No. 4563/66 and Suit No. 4562/66 would be taken together. Evidence was thereafter led by the parties and a common judgment was given on 28th February, 1975 in both the suits. The landlords averment that he required the land for the purpose of erection of a new building was accepted and eviction decrees passed. Possession was directed to be handed over on or before 1st May, 1975. The matters were carried higher and a number of appeals were filed principally by the different occupants. The appeals filed by the 1st and the 2nd defendants respectively in Suit Nos. 4563/66 were numbered as Appeal Nos. 266 and 278 of 1975. The latter appeal is the one filed by the original 2nd defendant. These two as well as two other appeals were disposed of by Division Bench of the Court of Small Causes by a common judgment delivered on 20th November, 1980. Though upholding the eviction decree and the conclusion of the trial Court regarding the acceptance of the landlords case under section 13(1)(i) the appeal Court made the decree passed in RAE Suit No. 4563 of 1966 conditional and the condition as well as the reason for imposing the condition is to be found in para 19 of the appellate judgment.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that the appellate judgment is well reasoned, logical and exhaustive and ordinarily interference under Article 227 with such a judgment ought not to be considered.