SIKANDAR ALLA BAKSHA NAGARJI Vs. YESHWANT SUBRAO BIDKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Original Respondent, Yeshwant Subrao Bidkar, who was the owner of premises comprised in CTS 561/2 situated in B Ward at Kolhapur instituted a suit for eviction against the tenant on the ground of default in the payment of rent and on the ground that he required the premises bonafide for his use and occupation. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 13th November, 1999 on the ground that the landlord had established that he required the premises reasonably and bonafide for his own use and occupation. In appeal the decree was confirmed by the Additional District Judge. The Writ Petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution was instituted on 16th October, 2003. The landlord expired on 19th September, 2004 during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court and his heirs have been brought on the record.

(2.) The First submission that has been urged is that upon the death of the landlord during the pendency of the proceedings, this Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 must nevertheless take cognizance of this subsequent development. The submission is that in as much as the requirement that was set up in the suit was for the landlord himself, the requirement stands extinguished upon his death and the decree for possession must be set aside.

(3.) The landlord was on the date of the institution of the proceedings 74 years of age, and he pleaded that he was indisposed. The landlord stated that he was residing at Peth in small residential premises together with his wife, a married son and his family consisting of a daughter-in-law and three grandchildren. The landlord stated that the residential accommodation in which he was residing was inadequate to meet the requirements of his family. The landlord then pleaded that as a result of the ailments that he was suffering from he was required to visit Kolhapur from time to time for medical treatment. The landlord also carried on business as a potter at Kolhapur for which he was required to visit Kolhapur. According to the landlord it was inconvenient for him due to his physical ailments to commute between Peth and Kolhapur and that save and except for the suit property at Kolhapur he had no other house of his own. In these circumstances, the landlord set up the case that during the rest of his life he desired to settle in Kolhapur where he could also carry on his business as a potter and receive medical treatment.