BRIGADIAR HARJIT SINGH Vs. RANGMAHAL THEATRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by dismissal of his application under Section 13A1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for brief, "Bombay Rent Act"), the applicant has preferred the present Revision Application.

(2.) To state in brief, the dispute pertains to the flat No.30, on the 7th floor of Punam Apartments in Poonam Co-operative Housing Society Limited situated at 67, Nepean Sea Road, Bombay.l The flat consists of three bedrooms, hall, kitchen and a servant room. The flat originally belonged to one Gurumukh Nihal Singh who died in December, 1969 leaving behind son Prahlad Singh and four daughters, viz. Harbans, Surjeet, Tej Khanna and Satwant. Son Prahlad had half share in the said flat while each of the four daughters had 1/8th share. Prahlad transferred his half share in favour of his two sisters Harbans and Tej Khanna and thus share of each of these two sisters became 3/8th in the flat. Harbans transferred her share to Tej Khanna and thus Tej Khanna hold 3/4th share in the suit flat. The applicant is the son-in-law of Surjeet, who, according to the applicant, made a gift of her 1/8th share in favour of the applicant on 30.3.1993. However, the gift deed was not registered. On 3.6.1994, she executed a Deed of Confirmation of the gift and that document was duly registered on 3.6.1994. Prior to that, on 10.3.1993, Satwant also sold her 1/8th share in favour of the applicant on 10.3.1993. About that sale also, there is no registered document. The present applicant claims to have thus become owner of 1/4th share in the said flat. He made an application to the Society for recording his name in the Register of Society and by Resolution date 12.8.1993, the Society recorded the name of the applicant as one of the co-owners/co-sharers of the flat.

(3.) The flat was given to respondent No.1 on leave and license agreement dated 16.10.1970 for the purpose of residence of its partner, Hardeep Singh. The applicant was in the service of the Indian Army and retired from the Army as a Brigadier on 1.5.1993. He was suffering from Thyroid Cancer for a long period and since February, 1987, he was taking treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital and Research Centre at Mumbai and for the purpose of treatment he was required to regularly pay visit to the said Hospital. In view of this, he decided to settle at Mumbai after retirement. He did not have any other premises for residence in Mumbai after retirement. His Commanding Officer who was Area Commander where he had served, issued a certificate to the effect that he was in service of Army and did not have any premises within the local limits of Mumbai where he wanted to settle. Respondent No.2 - Tej Khanna She has given her consent to the applicant to reside in the suit premises. In such circumstances, the applicant filed an application under Section 13A1 of the Bombay Rent Act for eviction of respondent No.1 and for possession of the flat for his own residence as he bonafide required the same for occupation of himself and his family members.