DATTATRAYA RAMCHANDRA SAPKAL Vs. GULABRAO TUKARAM BHOSALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition challenging the decree for eviction passed against him by the IInd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Poona, and confirmed by the IInd Extra Assistant Judge, Poona.

(2.) THE defendant -petitioner was admittedly a tenant of the suit -premises which consists of a shed which was reconstructed in or about 1960. According to the landlord -respondent No. 1 the defendant had taken the premises specifically for carrying on his business of fret -work, but in about 1969 he had started 'plastic business' thereby causing a breach of the terms of tenancy. The plaintiff had also alleged that the defendant had constructed a loft and erected a permanent structure. Possession was also claimed on the ground that the defendant was in arrears of rent for more than six months.

(3.) THE defendant's case was that there was no change of user as contemplated by Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act read with Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, and that he had been having his plastic business right from the beginning and there was, therefore, no breach of the terms of tenancy.