ANANT MAHADEO RAMLINGE Vs. KARSANBHAI LALJI MISTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the orders passed by the Courts below under the Bombay Rent Act. The petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No.1366 of 1975 against the predecessor-in-title of the present respondents, stating therein that he is the owner of the House No.243 called "Vasant Bhuvan" and that the respondents are monthly tenant of the suit premises. The petitioner has stated in the plaint that since 1941 he has been living with his family in the rented premises at House No.417/1 Narayan Peth, Pune. As he was finding that the rented premises were not sufficient for his need by a register sale-deed dated 19.12.1970 he purchased the suit premises. He stated in the plaint that apart from his wife, he has 4 sons in his family, 2 of whom are already married. He further stated that the present rented premises in which he is residing are not sufficient for the need of his family and, therefore, he needs the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his own occupation.

(2.) THE respondents in the written statement denied the claim made by the petitioner. At the trial of the suit the petitioner examined himself. He stated that presently he is occupying two rooms, one admeasuring 10 x 10 ft. and other is 10 x 15 ft. and that considering the number of members of his family, he finds the rented accommodation insufficient and therefore, he needs the suit premises for his bonafide occupation. He further stated that his eldest son after marriage is living in a quarter allotted to him by the Corporation where he is in service. He further stated that his other son Ramesh got married in the year 1972 and after marriage he had to shift in the rented premises. He stated that his 3rd son is of a marriageable age and he is to be married shortly and that his 4th son is 22 years of age and he is in college. He stated that one room in the suit premises was previously occupied by one Mr.Padalikar and it has been vacated. But the area of that room is just 3 x 8 ft. and, therefore, it is unfit for his occupation. The plaintiff-petitioner also examined his son Ramesh and daughter-in-law Anjali. On behalf of the respondents only one witness was examined, namely, the present respondent no.3 Dinesh. He stated that he is residing in the suit premises with his mother-respondent no.1 and his brother Bhavesh, the respondent no.6. On the basis of this material on record the Trial Court decided the suit by its judgment dated 7.2.1980 and dismissed the suit. The Trial Court held that the petitioner-landlord has not succeeded in proving that he needs the premises bonafide and reasonably for his own occupation and on the aspect of comparative hardship also the Trial Court held against the petitioner. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court filed an Appeal which was registered as Civil Appeal No.200 of 1980 and was decided by the judgment dated 15th February 1983. The Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal. It is against these two judgments the present petition has been filed.

(3.) SHRI Dalvi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged before me that the premises presently occupied by the petitioner cannot be said to be occupied by him as a tenant as he is holding the lease of 999 years. He further urged that in the plaint, the petitioner had made out a case that he needs the suit premises so that his two married sons who are staying separately can come and live with him. However, in the submission of Shri Dalvi, on the basis of evidence on record the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the two married sons of the petitioner are not likely to come back to live with the petitioner Shri Dalvi further urged that the findings on the aspect of the bonafide need recorded by both the Courts below are based on material on the record and therefore, those cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.