ANAND SHANKARLAL TIWARI Vs. GULSHAN SANTRAM SAHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the tenant of the premises owned by the respondent has challenged the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court under the provisions of Sec. 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, the said Act) which decree has been affirmed by the District Court in appeal.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that it is the case of the respondent that he is the owner of shop block no.10 admeasuring about 429 sq. ft. along with mezzanine floor and loft in a building known as Seva Sadan located at Central Avenue Road, Nagpur. These premises were let out to the petitioner on rent of Rs. 1650/per month. The petitioner was doing business of Sanitary Ware and hardware in the name and style of M/s Laxmi Agency in the said premises. According to the respondent, he was running transport business in the name and style of M/s Maharaj Garage and Company. The said business was being run in partnership along with other family members. The son of the respondent was assisting the respondent in the transport business, but he wanted to start his own business. Though the respondent owned other premises, the same was let out to a tenant. The premises occupied by the petitioner were most suitable for his son to start his business. According to the respondent, the petitioner also owned a building consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor at Central Avenue Road. On the ground floor of the said building, there were three shop blocks occupied by three different tenants. Thus, on the ground that the respondent was in bona fide need of the suit premises so as to settle his son in business, the respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No.63/2008 on 22-2-2008.

(3.) The petitioner filed his written statement and took the stand that in absence of other co-owners of the suit property, the respondent alone had no locus to file the suit for eviction. The stand was taken that the suit premises comprise of a front portion bearing block no.9 and rear portion bearing No.27. The premises were initially owned by the mother of the respondent who had let out the same to the petitioner. The respondent used to collect rent on behalf of his mother as well as on his own behalf. It was then pleaded that the respondent had various properties including a residential house and these premises were sufficient to satisfy the need of his son. It was alleged that the facts pertaining to other properties owned by the respondent had been suppressed. A further plea was taken that the petitioner only had ⅕th share in the joint family property that was situated at Central Avenue road. It was averred that greater hardship would be caused to the petitioner in case the decree for eviction was passed and it was, therefore, pleaded that the suit be dismissed.