DHONAJO SUBHANA JADHAV Vs. BABASAHEB SADASHIV SHETE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 13th December 1983 passed by the Assistant Judge, Sangli in Civil Appeal No.214/1980. That Appeal was filed by the present petitioners, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tasgaon dated 4.8.1980 in Regular Civil Suit No.52/1971. That Civil suit was filed by the respondents, claiming therein that they are owners of the house in C.T.S.No.2088 at Guruwarpeth, Tasgaon. It was claimed that the open land admeasuring 349 square yard was leased out by a registered rent note dated 13.2.1964 to the petitioners. The landlord claimed a decree of eviction against the tenant on two grounds, namely, that the tenant has erected a permanent structure on the suit premises without a written consent from the landlord and that the suit premises were unlawfully sublet by the tenant. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on the record, recorded findings in favour of the landlord and against the tenant, directing the tenant to vacate the suit premises. In the appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the Appeal. Thus in the present petition what is challenged is the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below.

(2.) THE first contention that is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the registered lease deed dated 13.2.1964 provided forfeiture of the lease for two reasons, namely, non payment of the rent regularly and unlawful subletting. According to the learned counsel, the said registered lease deed did not provide forfeiture of the lease on the ground that the permanent structure was raised and therefore, as the lease was for the period of 20 years, before expiry of that term the suit could not have been filed by the landlord. The learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Hotel Gudur V/s. Radhakrishnaiah and others, (reported in AIR.1989 S.C. 1510).

(3.) IN so far the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Hotels is concerned, in that case the period of lease was 30 years and that period was to expire even when the Supreme Court decided the case. However in the present case the period of lease is already over. It is further to be seen that in view of the Judgment of the Constitution Bench in Dhanpal Chettiar's case it is clear that a lease to which the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act are applicable, cannot be terminated either by a notice or by a forfeiture clause in the lease deed.