DATTATRAY KASHINATH RAJMANE Vs. VITHAL RAJARAM BHOSALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner of the premises consisting of one-and-a-half khan on the ground floor and one-and-a-half khan on the first floor of the shop premises in a building bearing municipal house no.1426 situate in Subhash Chowk at karmala, district Solapur. Admittedly, the premises were rented out to the original defendant tenant. The standard rent of the suit premises was fixed at Rs.4/- plus permitted increases, totalling to Rs.6.95 per month. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was not paying the rent regularly from 10.8.1974. Therefore, he issued a notice dated 3.8.1977 and demanded arrears of rent from 10.8.1974. The defendant replied the said notice by his reply dated 16.8.1977 conten-ding that he was not a defaulter and he had already paid the rent. The plaintiff also contended that he needs the suit premises for his bona fide personal occupation and, accordi-ngly, he filed Regular Civil Suit No.118 of 1978 against the defendant-tenant for posse-ssion of the suit premises on the ground that the defendant-tenant is a defaulter as also on the ground of bona fide personal requirement.

(2.) THE learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he required the suit premises for his bona fide personal use. The learned trial Judge held that the notice is not legal and valid. Even on the issue of hardship, the learned Judge held in favour of the tenant. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant is in arrears of rent for more than six months. On these findings, the learned Judge, ultimately, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for possession under both counts i.e. under section 13(1)(g) as also under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act by his judgment and decree dated 18.7.1980. However, he granted by the said decree an amount of Rs.272.15 towards rent for the period from 10.8.1974 to 9.9.1977.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees of both the lower Courts, the plaintiff has preferred this petition, I have heard Ms Baxi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of this petition and Messrs Rajure and Mane for the respondents/defendants. With the assistance of the learned counsel on both the sides, I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the lower Courts.