PRABHAKAR N NERURKAR Vs. GANGADHAR S KUMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 26.8.1985 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No.329 of 1984. That appeal was filed by the legal representatives of late Anandrao N.Nerurkar, who had filed Civil Suit No.1070 of 1980 before the Small Causes Court at Bombay. Initially the suit was filed by the original Plaintiff along with Defendant No.2 Dr.S.N.Nerurkar against original Defendant No.1 Gangadhar S.Kumble for a decree of eviction from the suit premises. However, it appears that after the civil suit was filed the original tenant Kumble surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of Dr.S.N.Nerurkar. Therefore, thereafter the original Plaintiff amended the plaint and Dr.S.N.Nerurkar, who was a co-owner of the premises even according to the Plaintiffs was now arranged as defendant and the plaintiff sought a declaration that the surrender of tenancy by the original tenant in favour of Dr.S.N.Nerurkar was illegal and the Plaintiffs sought possession of the suit premises from Dr.S.N.Nerurkar. The trial Court found that such a suit is not tenable under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act as after the amendment it was no more a suit for possession filed by the landlord against the tenant. It was a dispute between the two owners of the property and as a result, the suit was dismissed. The Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the original Plaintiff re-appreciated the material on record and confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court that the controversy that fell for consideration in the civil suit was not between the landlord on one side and tenant on the other side and therefore, the rent Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the result, the appeal was dismissed.

(2.) When the petition was called out for final hearing, none appeared for the Petitioner as also for the Respondents. However, I have gone through the records. I find that the relief that was claimed by the original Plaintiffs in the suit was not against the tenant, but he was seeking possession from one of the co-owners of the property and therefore, both the Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that it was not a suit under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. I find no fault with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. In the result, therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.