DATTATRAYA GURUNATH SONTAKKE Vs. KAUSALYABAI EKNATH JAGTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30.10.1991 passed by the V Additional District Judge, Pune, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the decree of eviction passed against the petitioner by the 6th Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune, dated 31.3.1990 passed in Civil Suit No.570/1987. The civil suit was filed by the respondent-landlords under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act claiming a decree of eviction against the petitioner-tenant. The landlords claimed decree of eviction on several grounds. The trial Court, however, passed the decree on three grounds, namely, (1) that the tenant has secured alternate accommodation, (2) that the tenant has kept the premises locked for a period of six months preceding the filing of the suit, and (3) that the landlords need the premises bona fide and reasonably for their own occupation. The suit premises are a block of three rooms.

(2.) THE suit premises were originally owned by Eknath Jagtap, who is the husband of the respondent No.1 and the father of the respondent Nos.2 and

(3.) IN view of the rival submission, now, it is to be examined whether in the present case there is a change of circumstances when the second suit was filed in so far as the aspect of bona fide need of the landlords is concerned. Perusal of the plaint of Civil Suit No.871/1981 shows that the suit was filed by Eknath who was the sole landlord of the suit premises. In the plaint, there is only one sentence to be found in paragraph 2 in so far as the bona fide need is concerned. It is stated "The plaintiff needs the premises, which are with the Defendant, for his own use." Thus it is clear that the plaintiff Eknath had pleaded only his own need for the premises in the plaint and he was the only landlord of the suit premises at that time. He did not plead in the plaint that the premises were needed by him for providing accommodation to his sons who are the landlords now. So far as the plaint in Civil Suit No.570/1987 is concerned, perusal of paragraph 4 of the plaint shows that the respondent-landlords have pleaded that the respondent No.2 is now married and has two sons and that the marriage of the respondent No.3 is settled and he will need a separate bed room. A comparison of the pleadings of the ground of bona fide need of the landlords for suit premises, clearly shows that the circumstance pleaded in the second suit were not available when the first civil suit was filed. Though it is not clear from the record whether the respondent No.2 was married when, in 1981, the civil suit was the filed by Eknath, perusal of the cross title of the petition shows that in the present petition filed in the year 1992, the petitioner has mentioned that the age of the respondent No.2 is 34 years. It, therefore, follows that in 1981, he would be 23 years old. So far as the respondent No.3 is concerned, the petitioner mentions his age as 26 years in 1992. Therefore, he would be about 15 years of age in 1981. In these circumstances, therefore, in my opinion, there was definitely a change in circumstances when the second suit was filed; therefore, the second suit would be maintainable so far as the aspect of bona fide need is concerned.