RAMACHANDRA SUKHDEO JAGTAP Vs. ANUSAYABAI DADA KALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is original defendant-tenant of the suit premises, which are situated at Gorewadi, Nasik Road, bearing City Survey No. 5695, Municipal House No. 2924. The respondent, original plaintiff, now represented by her legal heirs had filed Regular City Suit No. 947 of 1974 against the original defendant, who is the tenant of the suit premises for eviction on the ground of the bonafide requirement and arrears of rent. The plaintiff contended that the defendant-tenant is in occupation of a room. He is paying rent Rs. 12/- per month. As monthly tenant, defendant was in arrears of rent from 10th May, 1984. The husband of the plaintiff was to retire from service. He has purchased the house in which the suit premises are situated with a view to occupy the same after his retirement. The sale-deed stands in the name of the plaintiff is in the nature of benami. As the defendant tenant did not respond to the notice issued by her, the present suit came to be filed by the plaintiff claiming eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement and perhaps on the ground of arrears of rent also.

(2.) THE petitioner, original defendant, defended the suit stating that the room in his possession is of 8' x 8' size as tenant. Plaintiff's husband, who is working in Security Press has acquired one quarter there and he is not likely to retire and hence the plaintiff's requirement is not genuine. On the contrary, she requires the room to let it out on higher rent.

(3.) THE plaintiff was made aware of the letter Exh. 22 which contains signatures of four tenants who were occupying the rooms purchased by the plaintiff. On the face of this letter Exh. 22, it appears that the plaintiff obtained sale-deed from former owner Pagare on 14th August, 1973. The plaintiff contended that as her husband was to retire from the services and therefore she purchased the suit house and their family wanted to reside therein. For that purpose she started present proceedings against two tenants as well as against the present petitioner.