NILKANTH MAHADEO KAMBLE Vs. SUSHILABAI MARUTI BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the landlord, which is a public trust. The landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No.270/1979 seeking a decree of eviction against the tenants on the ground of default in payment of rent by the tenants, nuisance and also on the ground that the landlord needs the premises bona fide for its own use. The trial Court decided the suit by its judgment dated 31.3.1984 and decreed the suit.

(2.) IT may be pointed out here that the premises which consist of 300 square yards of land owned by the landlord/ petitioner/ trust were leased to one Maruti Laxman Bhagat who had raised some structures on that land. Before the civil suit was filed, the said Maruti expired. Therefore, the widow of the tenant, by name Sushilabai, and son Mahadeo were joined as defendants. In the written statement, the defendants raised a plea that all legal representatives of deceased Maruti should have been joined as defendants to the suit. Therefore, the trial Court had framed an issue as to whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The trial Court held that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The trial Court held that the defendant-tenants were in arrears of rent for a period of more than 6 months. The trial Court also held that the defendant-tenants have caused nuisance and annoyance to the landlord and that the landlord has proved that it bona fide requires the land for its own use and for all these reasons, the trial Court decreed the suit.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the two daughters of deceased Maruti, who were already married, are not necessary parties to the suit. The Appellate Court has, however, held that one minor son of deceased Maruti, by name Bhai, was a necessary party to the suit and, therefore, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before me that during the pendency of this petition, the widow of Maruti, by name Sushila, who was respondent No.1 in this petition expired. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for her addressed a letter dated 17.2.1992 to the counsel for the petitioners disclosing therein that Sushila expired on 10.1.1992 leaving behind her four heirs, namely, one son Mahadeo, who is already respondent No.2 to the petition and was defendant No.2 in the suit, and three married daughters. The letter is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. In the submission of the learned counsel, this letter discloses that there is no son by name Bhai left behind by deceased Sushila and Maruti, the original tenant. The learned counsel further submitted that thereafter the petitioners filed an application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Sushilabai on record, being Civil Application No.4640/1993, whose names were disclosed in the letter dated 17.2.1992 at 'X'. All the legal representatives were served with notices. None of them raised an objection that there is one more son by name Bhai of deceased Maruti and Sushila, who should be joined as a respondent to this petition. In these circumstances, therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the finding recorded by the Appellate Court that Maruti had left behind a son by name Bhai is factually incorrect. Having gone through the letter dated 17.2.1992 at 'X', as also the order passed in Civil Application No.4640/1993, it is absolutely clear that the finding recorded by the Appellate Court that Maruti had left behind a son by name Bhai is factually incorrect and wrong and, therefore, the order of the Appellate Court dismissing the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.