YAMUNABAI DATTOBA TAWARE Vs. NANA BHIKOBA NAGADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of both side counsel.

(2.) This writ petition is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 26th November 2004 passed by the 9th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 698 of 2003 wherein the Court has set aside the decree passed by the Small Causes Court, Pune in favour of the present petitioner in Civil Suit No. 91 of 1998. Present petitioner is the original plaintiff from Civil Suit No. 91 of 1998 filed before the Small Causes Court, Pune. The respondent is the original defendant from the said suit. The petitioner had filed the said suit for getting possession of the suit premises consisting of one room admeasuring 10x12 feet in C.T.S. No. 3724, Taware Colony, Opposite Rasik Medicals, Aranyeshwar, Pune-9, which is located within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation. Petitioner is landlord of the said premises while respondent is an admitted tenant of the said premises. The premises are governed under the Bombay Rent Act. Petitioner - landlord has claimed possession of the said premises from the respondent mainly on two grounds, namely, the respondent has made permanent additional alterations in the suit premises without the consent of landlord and, secondly, the possession of the suit premises is required reasonably and bonafide for the occupation of landlord. The Additional Judge of the small Causes Court, Pune, by order dated 10th October 2003 decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner- landlord holding that the petitioner - plaintiff has proved that the respondent - defendant has made permanent additional alternations in the suit premises without the consent of the landlord. On a point of bonafide requirement, the Judge of Small Causes Court held that the petitioner - landlord requires possession of the said premises reasonably and bonafidely for his occupation. Even the point of hardship was decided in favour of the plaintiff. In short, both the contentions of the plaintiff were upheld and suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner - plaintiff.

(3.) Said decree was challenged by the respondent - tenant by filing Civil Appeal bearing No. 698 of 2003 in the District Court Pune, which was disposed of by the Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Pune by his judgment dated 26.11.2004. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 91 of 1999. Therefore this petition.