TALIBHAI MOHASANBHAI KACHWALA Vs. SIRAJUDDIN SAJJADBHAI MULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Petitions can be disposed of by this common Judgment since the Writ Petition No.651 of 1983 has been filed on behalf of the original defendant No.2 and Writ Petition No.905 of 1984 is filed by the original plaintiffs. They are challenging the judgment and order passed in Civil Appeal No.618 of 1981 dated 25-11-1982 by the IInd Extra Assistant Judge, Pune. Hereafter reference shall be made to the parties with regard to Writ Petition No. 651 of 1983.

(2.) THESE Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise in the following facts and circumstances. The suit premises is a godown admeasuring 30' x 11' situated at C.T.S. No.600, Raviwar Peth, Pune. The petitioner herein is the tenant thereof since 1948 and the rent per month is Rs.18.00. This property came to be purchased by respondents 1 to 6 by sale deed dated 2-1-1976. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 are the real brothers. Petitioner and respondent No. 7 are brothers. Respondent No.7 is the (original tenant). However, the petitioner also claimed to be the tenant alongwith respondent No.7. The respondents 1 to 6 first filed the suit on 16-2-1976, being Suit No.484 of 1976 against the petitioner for eviction. However, because of some technical difficulties, it was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. Fresh notice of demand of arrears of rent and termination of tenancy was issued on 24-3-1977. The suit came to be filed on 15-6-77 claiming possession of the suit premises and arrears of rent. The suit came to be filed against the respondent No.7 along with the petitioner. It was asserted by respondents 1 to 6 that respondent No.7 was the tenant of the suit premises but the petitioner may obstruct the execution of the decree and hence he is joined as a party defendant.

(3.) THE suit was not contested by respondent No.7. It was contested by the Petitioner alone. The petitioner contended that respondent No.7 was not the tenant alone. The tenancy was joint in the name of the petitioner and respondent No.7. It was denied that there was any default committed. He also denied that the suit premises were kept unused and locked for more than six months prior to the filing of the suit. It is also contended that respondents 1 to 6 do not require the suit premises reasonably and bonafide inasmuch as they are having many other premises for their residence and business.