SURESHCHANDRA MOTILAL TALERA Vs. BABAMIYA DADAMIYA SAYYED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises from eviction proceedings instituted by the petitioner for eviction of the respondents under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short "rent Act" ).

(2.) THE petitioner instituted Eviction Suit No.2598 of 1979 for an order evicting the respondents and possession of premises bearing Rooms Nos. 3 and 14 of Bungalow No.14, Wilson Garden, Pune. THE petitioner claimed in the suit that the 1st respondent was his tenant in respect of both the rooms and was paying therefor Rs. 25/- per month excluding education cess and separately for electricity and water consumption charges. Admittedly, respondent No.2 is the married sister of respondent No.1, respondent No.3 being her son. Several grounds were taken for eviction of the respondents under the Rent Act. It was asserted that respondent No.1 has acquired suitable residential accommodation at Darga near Sangam Bridge, opposite Engineering College, Wellesley Road, Pune-5 and, accordingly, shifted his residence along with his family members. Secondly, the respondent No.1 sub-let the premises to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in breach of the terms and conditions of the tenancy. THE third ground for eviction sought to be made was that respondent No.3 is guilty of conduct which amounted to nuisance, viz. that he is addicted to liquor and in drunkenness abuses and threatens the petitioner and commits nuisance to other occupiers. It was also claimed that respondent No.3 used to keep hens and goats which also created nuisance. THE last ground claimed is that the petitioner reasonably and bonafidely requires the suit premises for his own use as the accommodation under his occupation and possession is insufficient for his growing needs. Some claim for arrears of rent was also made.

(3.) SHRI C. R. Dalvi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, made considerable grievance that the appellate Court illegally interfered and that too unjustifiably in the finding of the trial Court, viz. the creation of sub-tenancy in favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3.He pointed out that the trial Court had addressed itself correctly on Issue No.1. He further pointed out that respondent No.1 never disputed that rent was paid by him and that the receipt was issued by the petitioner in his name. He then says that it is common ground that respondent No.1 has been occupying for his residence along with members of his family the premises at Wellesley Road, Pune-5. SHRI Dalvi, therefore, urged that once the suit premises were found to be exclusively in possession of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, nothing more was left for the petitioner to prove in getting an order of eviction as was rightly held by the trial Court.