BABI NARAYAN TORASKAR Vs. SARASWATIBAI G. BHIMRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an alleged service tenant's writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India taking exception to the passing and confirmation of a decree for ejectment under Section 13(1)(f) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

(2.) THE respondents-plaintiffs instituted a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for possession of the premises figuring in this petition. It was their case that the petitioner-defendant was permitted to occupy the tenement in consideration of his rendering service as a gardener for the respondents-plaintiffs. This was from February 15, 1973. Sometime in early 1976, the petitioner-defendant took to drinking and being in indifferent health. For this reason he could not work satisfactorily and he gave up the working altogether as from April, 1976. When he was asked to vacate the premises, the petitioner-defendant initially made false promises, but eventually refused to vacate. By a notice dated July 27, 1976, the petitioner-defendant was called upon to vacate the suit premises. The petitioner-defendant in his reply given on August 2, 1976 came forth with the false claim that he was not in the employment of the respondents-plaintiffs, but was in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant. Hence, the claim for ejectment. In his written statement, the petitioner-defendant denied that he was ever in the employment of the respondents-plaintiffs. According to him, he was in occupation of the suit premises since long, and as a tenant. The notice given by the respondents-plaintiffs, apart from being false, was bad in law. The suit deserved to be dismissed with costs.

(3.) THE documentary evidence placed before the trial Court consisted of Exhibit 'A' which was little more than a list showing cheques drawn by the respondents-plaintiffs to get money from the Bank for payment of their employees, so at least, it was alleged. The documentary evidence upon which great reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant is at Exhibits 5, 6 and 7. Exhibit 5 is a ration-card purporting to show where the petitioner-defendant was residing when the said ration-card was issued. Exhibit 6 is an identity-card issued to the petitioner-defendant's son examined as a witness in this case. Exhibit 7 is a pass book showing the petitioner-defendant's son to be an account-holder with the Postal Bank at Bandra Bazar Post Office. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner-defendant was a servant, that the suit premises had been given to him in pursuance of the service contract and that there was no truth in his claim of being a tenant at a rental of Rs. 20 per month. Holding thus, the learned trial Judge passed a decree for ejectment which was assailed in appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay by the petitioner-defendant. That Appellate Bench also held that the judgment under challenge rested entirely upon the appreciation of facts and that the appraisal made by the trial Court could not be faulted with. There are certain observations in the judgment of the Appellate Bench which indicate that the genuineness of Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 was doubtful. The result was that the appeal failed and the decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed.