LAWS(BOM)-1996-10-103

SUGARBAI MOHAMAD SIDDIQ Vs. RAMESH SUNDAR HANKARE

Decided On October 17, 1996
SUGARBAI MOHAMAD SIDDIQ Appellant
V/S
RAMESH SUNDAR HANKARE DECEASED BY LRS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment, as they arise out of the judgment and decree, passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 378/81 dated 23rd December, 1983. To understand the facts of the present case, I would refer to the facts as are given in Writ Petition No. 307/91, since the facts being common.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 307/91, is filed by one Ramesh Sundar, who happened to be the respondent in another petition i. e. Writ Petition No. 3262/89. The present respondents in Writ Petition No. 307/91 are the landlords of the premises in question, who have filed Writ Petition No. 3262/89.

(3.) SMT. Sugrabai Mohd. Sadiq with her son, Mohd. Ramjan, who are respondents 1 and 2 respectively (in W. P. No. 307/91) are the landlords who filed Civil Suit for recovery of possession of the shop premises, admeasuring 15 x 10 ft. out of the ground floor area of the house i. e. City Survey Nos. 27 and 27-A, having Municipal House No. 2573, situated in Mochi Galli, Ahmednagar. The present petitioners i. e. petitioner No. 1-A to 1-G are the legal representatives of one Ramesh Sundar, who happened to be the original tenant in the suit premises, described above. The rent, as agreed, was Rs. 55/- per month, tenancy being monthly as per the English Calendar. There is no dispute between the parties on the point that tenant was carrying on his business in footware. The respondent-landlord having found that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months and to be precise for the period from 1-1-1978 to 30-6-1978 and since the landlord needed the premises in question for his bona fide occupation, necessary notice dated 3rd of July, 1978 was issued calling upon the petitioner-tenant to pay the necessary arrears within the time stipulated in the notice as also to vacate the premises. This notice, which is seen at Ex. 29 on the record of the lower Court, was received by tenant on 14-7-1978 and was duly replied by the tenant by his reply dated 29-7-1978 denying the allegations made by the landlord through the said notice. Since the tenant failed to comply with the notice, naturally the landlord constrained to file Regular Civil Suit No. 756/78 on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar. The suit was filed on three grounds, namely, that the tenant was in arrears from 1-1-1978 to 30-6-1978; that the landlord needed the premises for his bona fide personal occupation; and also on the ground of non-user. On notice, the petitioners-tenants (hereinafter referred to as the tenants all through) did file their written statement on 10-7-1979 denying the allegations made in the plaint on the point of arrears of rent and bona fide need of the landlord. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar, who dealt with the matter, framed 12 issues in all. However, the relevant issues out of those 12 issues, for the purposes of the decision in the present petitions are issues 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, since they are the issues which deal with the arrears of rent and bona fide need of the landlord. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar, after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties, by his judgment and order dated 15-7-1981 decreed the suit of the plaintiff on two grounds. i. e. the bona fide need of the landlord and the tenant having been held to be in arrears. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, therefore, ordered that the respondent-landlord was entitled to recover vacant possession of the suit premises from the petitioner-tenant after one month from the date of the judgment by that Court. The respondent-plaintiff was held entitled to recover Rs. 495/- from the defendant and also future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 55/- per month from the date of the suit till realisation of the possession by the landlord. Needless to mention, that the standard rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 55/- per month. However, none of the parties agitated on this point in this petition.