JAYANT BABURAO WANI Vs. SATISH RAMCHANDRA WANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

(2.) The petitioner impugns order dtd. 30/12/2024 passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Rent Control/Revision/406/2024, thereby upholding order dtd. 27/6/2024 passed by Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court, Nashik Division, Nashik (for short 'Competent Authority') in Application No.12/2008, whereby decree of eviction has been passed against petitioner/tenant under Sec. 23 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short 'Act of 1999').

(3.) The respondent no.1 instituted proceeding under Sec. 23 of Act of 1999 against petitioner for recovery of possession of suit property i.e. shop admeasuring 640 sq. ft. situated on ground floor of premises constructed on CTS No.524 admeasuring 70.2 sq. mtrs. at Raver, District Jalgaon. It was contention of respondent no.1 that he was serving with MSEB. He retired from service on 31/10/2007 on attaining age of superannuation. His native place is Raver, District Jalgaon. The suit property was given on rent by his father to petitioner's father at monthly rent of Rs.15.00. After death of respondents' father, petitioner's father paid rent upto 31/1/1993 to respondent no.1. Thus, there was relation of landlord and tenant between them. After death of petitioner's father, petitioner took over business of grocery shop run by his father in suit premises and continued to occupy premises as tenant. The petitioner failed to pay rent from 1/2/1993 till 31/8/2008. On retirement of respondent no.1, he served legal notice upon petitioner to hand over disputed premises, as he wanted to shift to his native place Raver. The petitioner failed to reply said notice, which laid to filing of present proceeding. The petitioner filed written statement. Although he accepted landlord-tenant relationship, took objection as to maintainability of proceeding under Sec. 23 of Act of 1999 on ground that petitioner's employer i.e. MSEB cannot be treated as Government undertaking. Secondly, he denied claim of bonafide requirement of respondent no.1, as he owns many other properties apart from house at Jalgaon.