PANDHARINATH KRISHNAJI BHAMBURE Vs. CLARA MICHAEL NAZARATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions have been filed, challenging the same judgment of the V Additional District Judge, Pune, dated 31.1.1992, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.610/1988. Therefore, both these petitions can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) WRIT Petition No.2467 of 1992 has been filed by the original plaintiff and Writ Petition No.1470 of 1992 has been filed by the original defendant. The plaintiff filed Suit No.1014/1980 against the defendant praying for a decree of possession in his favour in relation to the suit premises on the ground that he needs the premises bona fide and reasonably for his own occupation. The suit premises consist of ground floor and first floor. The ground floor has 3 rooms with Wada, kitchen and a living room and identical accommodation is available on the first floor. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit premises. The plaintiff claimed in the plaint that he is presently living in a rented accommodation consisting of two rooms, one room having an area of 10' x 8 1/4' and another room having an area of 7'- 4" x 9' - 8". He claimed that his family consists of 6 members, namely, himself, his wife, son, daughter-in-law and grandson and one more son of marriageable age. He claimed that his tenanted accommodation is not sufficient for his purpose. The defendant-tenant filed written statement and resisted the claim. She claimed that the landlord has available to him some other accommodation and, therefore, he does not need the premises bona fide. After the parties led evidence, the suit was decided by the trial Court by its judgment dated 28.3.1988. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The trial Court held that the landlord has available to him accommodation at 8, Solapur Road and, therefore, he does not need the suit premises. An appeal was carried against the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit by the plaintiff. The appeal has been partly allowed. The Appellate Court has passed a decree in favour of the landlord in relation to the two rooms on the first floor of the suit premises. This order of the Appellate Court is challenged by both the plaintiff and the defendant in these two writ petitions.

(3.) IT is to be seen that it was the case of the plaintiff that he was previously residing in the premises at 8, Solapur Road, Pune. That property had gone to the share of his brother in the partition of the joint family property. He continued to reside there gratis because the house that fell to his share was the suit premises. However, after the death of his brother, his sister-in-law drove him out and, therefore, he took the premises on rent and started residing there. The Appellate Court has noted that in support of his case that there was a partition of the joint family property and that at the partition, the premises at 8 Solapur Road, Pune, had gone to the share of the brother of the Plaintiff, the plaintiff had produced the property card which took an entry on the basis of the Partition Deed. Now, it is to be seen that property card is maintained by the Cantonment Board and, therefore, the entries made therein have presumptive value. Admittedly, there is no evidence brought on record by the tenant-defendant to displace the presumption raised by the entry. Therefore, in my opinion, the Appellate Court did not commit any error in setting aside the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff has available to him the premises at 8, Solapur Road, Pune.