BALU MAHADEO RANDHIR Vs. NABILAL HAJI HABIB GADIWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the original defendant challenging the legality and correctness of the decree of eviction passed against him by the lower Appellate Court under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.

(2.) BEFORE I refer to the decisions of both the lower courts, it is necessary to point out some very relevant facts. One Pirale was the original owner of several lands and the defendant -tenant was tenant of the said Pirale. The present plaintiffs father by name Hajihabib purchased the entire property from said Pirale under two sale deeds, one dated 2-2-1968 and the other dated 6-7-1971.

(3.) IN the year 1968, said Pirale, his sons as also the father of the present plaintiffs, viz. , Hajihabib filed Regular Civil Suit No. 66 of 1968 against several persons, including the present defendant-tenant as defendant No. 6 therein in the Court of the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli. It is relevant to notice that in the said suit, the plaintiffs, who included the father of the present plaintiffs, specifically averred in para 4 of the plaint that defendants No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are in possession of the five rooms constructed and other defendants (who included defendant No. 6 who is the present defendant-tenant Balu Mahadeo Randhir) are given open place on rent and they have constructed their own sheds on the same. In the said plaint, it was also averred that the ground rent of the premises in possession of the present defendant-tenant, who was defendant No. 6 therein, was Rs. 7/ -. In the suit, possession of all the premises was claimed as also Rs. 85/- was claimed towards compensation for the wrongful use by the defendants. It is extremely relevant to notice that the said suit was decreed on 30-6-1969 and it was decreed and ordered that defendant No. 1 therein should give possession of two rooms to the plaintiffs and so far as the remaining property is concerned (which obviously included the open plot demised to the defendant-tenant), the plaintiff should obtain symbolic possession.