PUNAMCHAND DAHYALAL NANWATI Vs. RAMANLAL BALUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-defendant No. 2, who was a partner of the dissolved partnership firm Bharatkumar and Company, filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No. 323 of 1983 decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Pune, on 16th January, 1985 whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 1982 in Civil Suit No. 2996 of 1978 passed by the learned Vth Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Pune, whereby he ad decreed the respondent No. 1-plaintiffs suit for eviction and arrears of rent.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the suit premises situate at 92, Raviwar Peth, Pune, were let out by the respondent No. 1-plaintiff to the petitioner-defendant No. 2 for carrying on business of his partnership firm Bharatkumar and Company on monthly rent of Rs. 90/-. The defendant No. 2 and his brothers respondents Nos. 2 to 4-defendants Nos. 3 to 5 were the partners of Bharatkumar and Company. The defendant No. 2 hired the suit premises in the year 1959 and the partnership firm of Bharatkumar and Company carried on its business of dyes and chemicals at the suit premises. Bharatkumar and Company was dissolved on 27th June, 1977 and thereafter the defendant No. 2 in the name of Bharatkumar Nareshkumar and Company and the respondent No. 5-defendant No. 6, a registered firm, with his wife kumud and son Bharatkumar carried on the said business of dyes and chemicals at the suit premises from 1st April, 1977. The plaintiff, the landlord and the owner of the suit premises has three sons, namely, Dr. Veerkumar, Chandrakant and Sharad. Mr. Veerkumar Shah got his M.B.B.S. Degree from Pune University in the year 1985 and got M.D. Degree in Paediatric from the same University in the year 1970. The present suit was instituted by the respondent No. 1 on 28th November, 1978. He claimed ejectment of the defendant No. 2 from and recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds, amongst others, that he required the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for personal occupation and that the defendant No. 2 sublet portions of the suit premises to various companies, including the respondent No. 5-defendant No. 6 Company. According to the plaintiff, his son Dr. Veerkumar Shah, after obtaining the M.B.B.S. Degree, started his dispensary in a room under a staircase in building No. 93 Raviwar Peth, Pune, Building No. 93 consists of a ground and three upper floors. The said dispensary is on the ground floor. The suit premises are at the first and the second floors of building No. 92 which adjoins building No. 93 and is separated only by a common wall. The plaintiff avers that the accommodation in possession of his on for running the dispensary is not sufficient. According to him, the dispensary is in a room having no proper ventilation and there is no sufficient accommodation for keeping the patients and treating them. According to the plaintiff, his son is badly in need of more accommodation for starting a paediatric hospital and the suit premises, which are in the adjacent building, are suitable for starting such hospital. According to the plaintiff, the two floors above the dispensary at building No. 92 and the room on the terrace of that building are all occupied by his son Chandu who is serving with Bank of India. The plaintiff states that he has a bungalow at Prabhat Road, which is also called Karve Road, Pune, and he resided with his son Dr. Veerkumar Shah in the said bungalow. Dr. Shah also has flat in Adinath Society") on Pune-Satara Road. The plaintiffs son Sharadchandra is an architect and he carries on his profession at Bombay. According to the plaintiff, he has no other accommodation vacant for his son Dr. Shah to start his hospital and the suit premises which are suitable for housing a hospital are required by him bona fide and reasonably for the hospital of Dr. Shah. Secondly, the plaintiff contends that the defendant No. 2 let out portions of the suit premises to the defendant No. 6 Company and as such the plaintiff was entitled to terminate the tenancy of the defendant No. 2 on the ground of sub-letting also. The plaintiff alleged that he terminated the tenancy of the defendant No. 2 by a notice in the year 1972. He claimed possession of the suit premises also on the ground that the defendant No. 2 made alterations in the suit premises by putting up constructions of permanent nature, but that ground did not succeed and it is not now being pressed.

(3.) The learned trial Judge raised necessary issues and after referring them to trial he held that the respondent No. 1-plaintiff failed to prove that he required the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for his own occupation. He also found that in case a decree for eviction was passed, greater hardship would be caused to petitioner-defendant No. 2. He found that the defendant No. 2 sublet the suit premises and on that ground the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for eviction. Therefore, on the ground, he decreed the plaintiffs suit for ejectment and recovery of possession of the suit premises. The defendant No. 2 preferred an appeal to the District Court, Pune, being Civil Appeal No. 323 of 1983. It was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Pune, who reversed the finding of the learned trial Judge on the issues regarding bona fide requirement of the plaintiff and to prevent hardship. He found that the plaintiff proved that he required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his personal occupation and that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff if the decree for eviction was refused. He also, agreeing with the learned trial Judge, held that the defendant No. 2 had unlawfully sublet a portion of the suit premises. On those findings, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and he granted time to the defendant No. 2 to vacate the suit premises till 15th March, 1985. The application Ex. 16, which was filed by the defendant No. 2 during the hearing of the appeal for production of some documents, was dismissed.