PADMAKAR DATTATRAYA MANE Vs. VISHNU SADASHIV TAKATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Civil Revision Application the petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 5-4-2007 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge (II) , Jalgaon dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner above named and thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 24-7-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division in Regular Civil Suit No. 373 of 1990 and misc. Application No. 69 of 1988.

(2.) The petitioner is the heir of one Padmakar Dattatraya Mane. The petitioner and the said Padmakar are the sons of Dattatraya Mane who was the tenant of two rooms and a galary on the upper floor of Municipal house No. 416 (old) /67 (new) which is owned by the respondent to the above Civil Revision application. The said original tenant Dattatraya died in the year 1978. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Padmakar and he were residing with Dattatraya i. e. their father at the time of his death. Padmakar had filed an application for fixation of standard rent under section 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" for the sake of brevity) bearing No. 69/88 in the Competent Court at Bhusaval. Whilst the said application was pending, the respondent landlord had issued a notice to Padmakar on 16-1-1989 terminating his tenancy and seeking possession from Padmakar. The said notice was replied by Padmakar by letter dated 24-1-1989 and denied the claim made in the said notice. It was further stated in the said reply that his elder brother i. e. Arvind is also a tenant. The said application for fixation of standard rent being Misc. Application No. 69/88 was opposed by the respondent/landlord who had filed his say to the said application.

(3.) On Padmakar refusing to vacate the tenanted premises, the respondent-landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No. 373 of 1990 against Padmakar under the provisions of the said Act on the ground of bona fide requirement and acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation by the said Padmakar. Padmakar, who was the defendant in the said suit, filed his written statement wherein he again contended that his elder brother Arvind is also a tenant along with him after the demise of their father Dattatraya. The said Padmakar opposed the prayer made in the said suit. The trial Court framed issues and from the point of view of the present petition, the Issue No. 3 was relevant namely : "whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party - was answered in the negative. The trial court, on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, came to a conclusion that the suit premises are required reasonably and bona fide by the landlord for his personal use and occupation and also held that the defendant/tenant i. e. Padmakar had acquired alternate accommodation during the pendency of the said suit and, therefore, directed the eviction of the said Padmakar from the tenanted premises.