NAGESH DATTATRAY HOMBALKAR Vs. INDIRABAI NARAYAN VAZE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ Petitions one by tenant against his eviction and other by landlady against refusal of some reliefs are directed against the judgment dated 17th/24th April 1985 in R.A.F.& R. Suit No.1312/4625 of 1974 made by the Judge of small Causes Court, Bombay, and the appellant judgment dated 30th June 1988. These two Petitions are being disposed of under a common judgment as it is convenient to do so since they arise out of common order in one proceedings. I will deal with Writ Petition No. 3706 of 1988 instituted by the original defendant-tenant.

(2.) RESPONDENT -landlady is a owner of a building known as 'Utkarsha' situated at Kotnis Road, Mahim, Bombay 400 016. The petitioner has been a tenant of a flat consisting of 2 rooms on the 1st floor of the said building admeasuring about 350 sq.ft. since June 1968, for short "suit premises". It is common ground that some time after the acquisition of the suit premises, the petitioner acquired upon ownership basis a residential flat in a Society known as 'Mrutyunjay Apartments' situated at Mahim, Bombay, consisting of 4 rooms of an area of 950 sq.ft. The newly acquired premises are undoubtedly at a walking distance of about 5/10 minutes from the suit premises.

(3.) SUIT was Vehemently resisted by the petitioner. The sum and substance of the defence was that contractual rent of the suit premises is Rs.175.00 and the demand made at the rate of Rs.262.50 Ps. and styled it as standard rent is incorrect and in any case, the standard rent of the suit premises would reasonably be Rs.150.00 per month. It was otherwise set out that the petitioner was working as Junior to a well-known lawyer Late Shri M.V.Paranjpe who had very good relations with the respondent-landlady. Late Shri Paranjpe himself wanted a residential premises along with one Sahastrabudhe who was related to the landlady and accordingly, upon negotiations as the building 'Utkarsha' needed to be vertically raised and which had remained so for want of finances, it was agreed that the petitioner-tenant would advance by way of loan of Rs.23,000.00 just as Late Shri M.V.Branjpe agreed to contribute Rs.44,000.00 as also Shri Sahasrabudhe. The thrust appears to be that with this money the respondent-landlady was able to raise the construction and that is how the petitioner-tenant was given a two-room premises on the 1st floor and larger and separate premises were given to Late Shri M.V.Parenjpe and Shri Sahasrtabudhe. It is not necessary to go into details on the aspect of the standard rent or arrears of rent claimed and contracted by the petitioner-defendant and sought adjustment against the advances made as finally relief on that ground has been denied to the landlady. Ground of requirement of the respondent-landlady for the personal occupation was negatived as also the claim of arrears. In the matter of change of user of the suit premises and acquisition of residential premises it was set out by the petitioner-tenant that right from the inception, he had been using the suit premises for his residence and also for office as a practising Advocate. It was, therefore, averred that even the petitioner has acquired new premises at 'Mrutyunjay Apartment' inasmuch as the suit premises are still used for Advocate's office by the petitioner-tenant and occasionally his son also sleeps there, there is no question of respondent-landlady being granted any decree of eviction in her favour and against the petitioner-defendant.