SHRI. RAGHUNATH S. DIXIT Vs. SURENDRANATH B. BURAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and decree dated 20 November 1997 made by the District Judge, Nashik dismissing the Petitioner's Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1986 seeking eviction of the Respondents from the suit premises.

(2.) The Petitioners-landlord, instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1986 in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at Nashik (Trial Court), seeking eviction of the Respondents-tenants on various grounds, including inter alia default in payment of rent, unlawful sub-letting, change of user and reasonable and bonafide requirement. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 13 April 1994, decreed the suit, inter alia, on the ground of unlawful sub-letting, reasonable and bonafide requirement and unauthorised change of user. In the Regular Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1994 instituted by the Respondents-tenants, the District Judge at Nashik (Appeal Court) has reversed the judgment and decree dated 13 April 1994 and dismissed the Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1986, hence the present petition.

(3.) Mr. V.S. Gokhale, learned counsel for the Petitioners, in the present case, has pressed for eviction of the Respondents-tenants on the grounds of unlawful subletting and reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlords. Accordingly, there is no necessity to examine the ground of unauthorised change of user. On the aspect of unlawful subletting, Mr. Gokhale has submitted that the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary very clearly establishes that the Petitioners-landlord had sub-let the suit premises to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, even though, the transactions was sought to be camouflaged as partnership. He pointed out that the Appeal Court has reversed the Trial Court mainly on the ground that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, ultimately, retired from the partnership and the possession of the suit premises was thereafter with Respondent No. 1 tenants. Mr. Gokhale submitted that such subsequent restoration of possession, does not, wipe out the charge of unlawful subletting. The cause of action, once accrued, cannot be wiped out by such subsequent acts. Mr. Gokhale pointed out that the partnership in the present case, was merely a camouflage and further, since Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not step into witness box, adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the Respondents. Mr. Gokhale submitted that once the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were found to be in exclusive possession in the suit premises, the onus lay upon them to explain the capacity in which, they came into possession. This onus has not at all been discharged by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and therefore, the Appeal Court exceeded jurisdiction in interfering with the well reasoned order made by the Trial Court.