SHIVRAM SHRIDHAR KALE Vs. BALASAHEB NABAJIRAO NAGEWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIVRAM Shridhar Kale, Professor and Social Worker, his wife Sadhana Shivram Kale and Dr. Gajanan Sadashiv Marathe, filed Civil Suit No.572 of 1976 against Balasaheb Nabajirao Nagawade and M/s. Sucheta Constr-uction Company for recovery of possession of one room. One Narayan Marathe was occupy-ing the said room as a monthly tenant of defendant no.1 Balasaheb Nagawade. The said Narayan Marathe was a bachelor and died on 18th December 1975. He left a will dated 12.11.1975 whereby he appointed plaintiffs no.1 and 2, viz., Shivram Shridhar Kale and Sadhana Shivram Kale, as executors. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs no.1 & 2 looked after deceased Nana Marathe during his illness prior to his death. The key of the suit premises was in possession of plaintiffs no.1 and 2. Plaintiff no.3 Dr. Gajanan Sadashiv Marathe is his younger brother and only heir of deceased Nana Marathe. After the death of Nana Marathe, plaintiffs no.1 & 2 alleged that they were in possession of the suit premises. However, on 26.2.1976 defendant no.1 illegally took possession of the suit premises by breaking open the lock. After taking possession, defend-ant no.1 let out the premises to defendant no.2.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by defendant no.1. He contended that none of the plaintiffs has got any legal right to claim the possession and as the landlord, after the death of the tenant who was staying all alone in the suit premises, he is entitled to the possession of the room owned by him. The landlord contended that after the death of Nana Marathe, defendant no.1 made an application to the Collector and the Commissioner of Police to collect and keep the articles of the deceased Marathe lying in the room in their possession. After waiting for nearly two months, on 25.2.1976 he effected panchanama of the articles lying in the suit premises and kept the same in safe custody. Thereafter, he left out the premises to defendant no.2. It was also contended that plaintiffs no.1 & 2 are also tenants of defendant no.1 in the same building in respect of some other premises Defendant no.2 also resisted the suit by adop-ting the same stand as that of defendant no.1.

(3.) THE petitioners, being aggrieved, filed Civil Appeal No.242 of 1981 to the District Court at Pune and the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Pune, by his judgement and decree dated 17.8.1982 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said judgement and order dismissing the appeal, the original plaintiffs have filed the present appeal.