KISHAN VANAJI SATPUTE Vs. BABURAO JAKHUJI WAKANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these four revision applications may be disposed off by the common judgment as they arise out of the judgment passed by the Courts below in the suits filed by the same landlord for eviction against the tenants on the ground that he wants to demolish the whole building and to reconstruct the same.

(2.) Revision applicants are the original defendants/ tenants while the respondents are the legal heirs of the original landlord Baburao Jakhuji Wakankar. The said Baburao had two sons namely, Pandharinath and Vithal. The suit premises are situated at City Survey No.1181 and they admeasure about 601.2 sq.mtrs. Property is situated at Budhwar Peth, Pune. The landlord Baburao had executed power of attorney in favour of his two sons and the suits came to be filed by him through his sons for eviction against the eleven tenants under the provisions of Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It is the contention of the landlord that each of the tenants was occupying a single room admeasuring 100 sq.ft. with potmala (attic) under the slanting roof. According to the landlord, potmala was used as a store room and had a approach by the ladder. Tenants have been residing in the same premises for the last about 50 or 60 years or even more. The landlord prepared a plan to demolish the building and to reconstruct the same. Some part of the building has to be used for commercial purpose and 1250 sq.ft. construction has to be made available to accommodate the tenants. Accordingly, he prepared a plan and got it sanctioned. According to the plaintiff, he has already an amount of Rs.6 lakhs in account of the members of his family and there was an assurance by co-operative bank to provide loan of Rs.50 lakh for this project. Cost of the construction of 1250 sq.ft., where the tenants have to be accommodated after reconstruction, is about Rs.11,62,000/-. For the remaining construction, cost is estimated at Rs.33,40,000/-. Plaintiffs assured to provide accommodation of 120 sq.ft. to each of the tenants. He also gave statutory undertaking with time bound programme for demolition of the old building and construction of new one.

(3.) Even though the suits were tried and disposed off separately, plea of each of the tenants was almost identical. Each of the tenants admitted that he was in possession of the room having potmala (attic). However, they denied the area of suit premises being 100 sq.ft. in each case. They also denied that potmala or the attic was used only for the store room and not for the residence. They also denied that all the tenants can be accommodated in 1250 sq.ft. area and also that the expenditure for construction of new building is Rs.11,62,000/-. They also denied financial capacity of the landlord to undertake and construct the project within the stipulated period. It is contended by them that even as per the statement of the plaintiff himself, he does not have sufficient funds to undertake a project. Each of them contended that in case new premises is constructed, he should get carpet area of atleast 250 sq.ft.