PRATIBHA ACHYUT KETKAR Vs. MOHAN NARAYAN BHAGWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, Petitioners challenge judgment and decree dtd. 7/5/2024 passed by the District Judge, Pune allowing Regular Civil Appeal No.518 of 2015 and setting aside the judgment and order dtd. 20/8/2015 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No.60 of 2012. The Appellate Court has decreed the suit by directing the Petitioners/Defendants to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiffs. The suit is decreed by the Appellate Court on the ground of bonafide requirement of Plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises.

(2.) Residential premises situated on the ground floor, admeasuring 600 square feet comprising of one bed room, hall, kitchen with toilet and bathroom in house property situated at City Survey No.212/15, Survey No.1(part), sub-plot No.A1/15, Rambaug Colony, Sadashiv Peth, Pune are the 'suit premises'. The house property in which suit premises are located was owned by father of Plaintiff No.1 and father-in-law of Plaintiff No.2-Late Narayan Kashinath Bhagwat. On said plot of land, the owner constructed ground floor structure after death of Late Narayan Kashinath Bhagwat. Plaintiffs claim ownership in respect of the land and the structure. Late Narayan Kashinath Bhagwat had inducted Dr. Achyut Laxman Ketkar as the monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises. Dr. Achyut Laxman Ketkar passed away in 1988. The Defendant is the wife of Dr. Achyut Laxman Ketkar, in whose name rent receipt was transferred.

(3.) According to Plaintiffs, Defendant did not need the suit premises since one of her sons was settled in America and second son was ENT Expert and was residing at Pimple Nilakh in his own house. The daughter of Defendant was married 40 years ago and was residing at her husband's place. Plaintiffs contended that they were residing in adjoining premises admeasuring 1200 square feet. That son of Plaintiff No.1 was of marriageable age and Plaintiffs needed additional space for his separate residence. In the year 1980, Late Narayan's daughter and son-in-law constructed additional premises admeasuring 1000 square feet on first floor. That after death of Narayan's daughter and son-in-law, Plaintiff No.2 shifted to the premises on the first floor. Plaintiffs claimed that the suit premises were not in use since the year 2009. Accordingly, Plaintiff served notice dtd. 2/11/2011 to the Defendant demanding possession of suit premises. Plaintiff instituted Suit No.60 of 2012 in the Small Causes Court, Pune for recovery of possession of suit premises from the Defendant. Defendant appeared in the suit and filed Written Statement. Defendant contended that Plaintiffs executed Development Agreement (DA) dtd. 11/7/2006 with Badve Construction Private Limited (Badve Constructions), who executed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dtd. 16/7/2006 with the Defendant for allotment of flat on ownership basis in lieu of the tenanted premises. Based on pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues inter-alia relating to grounds of bonafide requirement and non-use of the suit premises. The Trial Court also framed issues relating to existence of landlord-tenant relationship on account of execution of DA and MoU. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. Plaintiff No.1 examined himself. Similarly, Defendant examined herself in addition to examining Shrinivas Tukaram Badve as DW-2. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit by judgment and decree dtd. 20/8/2015 holding that relationship of landlord and tenant had come to an end on account of DA executed by the Plaintiffs with the Developer. The Trial Court also rejected the ground of bonafide requirement and non-use.