COMMANDER A R RAVINDRA Vs. JAGANNATH B JAGTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Revision Applications filed under Section 31F of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act), can be disposed of by common Judgment.

(2.) The applicant in Civil Revision Application Nos. 15 of 1992 and 16 of 1992 is the landlord and respondents in the respective Applications are tenants in respect of premises consisting of two rooms each on the ground floor of house No. 1623/24, Lane No. 19, Bhimpura, Pune within the limits of Pune Cantonment. The respective tenants have filed separate Revision Applications against the self same Judgment and Order passed by the lower Court being Civil Revision Application Nos. 258 of 2001 and 259 of 2001. The lower Authority in the proceedings before it against the respective tenants has rejected the claim of the landlord of bona fide requirement of the suit premises for himself, his old aged parents and children. Even while rejecting the claim of the landlord, the plea of the tenants that the transaction in favour of the landlord of sale was sham and colourable one, has been negatived by the lower Authority. Against that finding, the tenants have come up in separate Revision Applications while supporting the final order passed by the lower Authority of rejecting the application for possession of the suit premises filed by the landlord. The landlord, on the other hand, has challenged the finding recorded by the lower Authority that the requirement of the landlord as asserted in the application was not bona fide; and prays that the impugned decision be set-aside and instead, his application for possession of the suit premises be allowed. In this backdrop all the four Revision Applications are being disposed of together by this common Judgment.

(3.) Briefly stated, the landlord filed two separate applications before the competent Authority, Pune being Application No. 5 of 1991 and 6 of 1991 against the respective tenants. The case made out in the respective Applications filed by the landlord for the relief of possession of the respective suit premises is identical. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the averments made in application No. 5 of 1991 filed before the competent Authority against the tenant Ghodekar. Para 3 of the said application will be of relevance to decide the present matters. The same reads thus: