SHANTABAI GANESH JOSHI Vs. ANANT KESHAV JOSHI PUSHIRAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE concurrent judgments and decree for eviction passed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 580/74 dated 28-9-1981 and confirmed in appeal by Additional District Judge, Kolhapur on 3-1-1985 are under attack in this writ petition. The original Plaintiff Anant Keshav Joshi (since deceased now represented by the legal heirs) filed a suit for eviction against the Petitioner in the court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division in the year 1974. The eviction was sought on the ground of personal requirement. According to original Plaintiff, he purchased the property in question by registered sale-deed on 12-3-1974 for his occupation from one Shri Narayan Raghunath Kulkarni. At the time of purchase of the said property, present Petitioner was tenant in the disputed premises. It was averred in the plaint that original Plaintiff was living in a rented house of 2 rooms and his family comprised of himself, his wife, three sons and two daughters. Looking to the size of the family of the landlord and which may grow subsequently by marriage of his sons, the Plaintiff prayed for eviction. The said suit was contested by the Defendant-Petitioner herein and the trial court after recording the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties reached the conclusion that original Plaintiff has purchased the suit property by registered sale-deed on 12-3-1974 from Shri. Narayan Raghunath Kulkarni and that premises in question were required reasonably and bonafide by him and he would suffer greater hardship in case decree for possession was not granted. Accordingly, trial court granted decree for eviction in favour of Plaintiff. The Defendant-Petitioner challenged the decree for eviction in appeal before Additional District Judge and Additional District Judge also affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court that premises in question were required reasonably and bonafide and that greater hardship would be caused to the Plaintiff in case decree for eviction was not passed.

(2.) DURING pendency of writ, the original Plaintiff died and in his place his legal representatives viz. three sons, two daughters were substituted.

(3.) REPLY to the Civil Application has been filed by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff and they have admitted that Prakash and Suresh have purchased respective houses where they are residing with their families.