SURENDRA M WAGH Vs. MANOHAR KRISHNA KALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner tenants have preferred this petition against the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court dated 25th October, 1993 dismissing the Appeal No. 7 of 1992 and confirming the order passed by the Trial Court dated 5th October, 1991 whereby the petitioners were directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the present respondents.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. Perused the record.

(3.) The original plaintiff had filed the suit for possession of the suit premises i.e. Block No. 2, "Anupam" situated at 777 Tilak Road, Dadar, Bombay - 400 028 against the original tenant Vasant G. Thakur (defendant No.1) and his sister-in-law Mrs. Rajani Talwalkar (sister of 1st defendant s wife) as the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff had claimed possession on two grounds, namely, (i) that the tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation and (ii) defendant No.1 had sublet the premises to defendant No.2. The plaintiff s case was based on the fact that the 1st defendant was an Under Secretary to the State Government and was given Government accommodation being Govt. Bungalow No.7, Opp. Sachivalaya and was required to shift to the said bungalow alongwith his family members in June, 1973. On the death of the original 1st defendant in 1990, the present petitioners were brought on record as legal heirs and representatives of original defendant No.1. The original defendant No.1 had stated in his evidence that defendant No.1b i.e, first petitioner was staying with the tenant since 1958 continuously as a member of his family. On pleading of both parties, the trial proceeded and the Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit on the ground that the 1st defendant had acquired suitable residential accommodation. However, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant No.1 had unlawfully sublet the premises in favour of the defendant No.2. The appeal was carried to the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court was of the view that the findings recorded by the Trial Court on the ground of residential accommodation was required to be evicted and further it was also held that subletting was proved. In the result the appeal was dismissed and cross-objection filed by the respondent came to be allowed. Hence the present petition.