VASANTRAO GUDACHARVA JAHAGIRDAR Vs. SHARANBASAPPA VISHWANATH HALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant- tenant has challenged concurrent findings of both the courts below that he is liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground that the applicant-tenant has obtained alternate accommodation and that the tenant has not used the suit premises for a period of six months prior to the filing of the suit.

(2.) Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not properly pleaded the ground of non-user of the premises for a period of six months prior to the suit as is required to be pleaded by the section 13(k) of the Bombay Rent Act, which reads as follows : 13(k) that the premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit.

(3.) I am not inclined to allow this ground to be urged since it is being urged for the first time in this revision, without being raised in any of the courts below. It is clear that the parties were perfectly conscious of the grounds that is being pleaded and in fact have gone to trial on the basis of the understanding of the pleadings. The parties have already led evidence and argued the existence or otherwise of the essential ingredients of 13(k). The Courts below have considered the availability of the grounds. See Sardul Singh vs. Pritam Singh & Ors, reported in (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 522. It is settled law that where the parties have gone to the trial with full knowledge of the pleadings they ought not to be allowed to raise a ground for the first time at a much later stage. No prejudice can be said to be caused to them.