ASHOK RAJARAM YADAV Vs. CHUNILAL RAMSUKH JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition filed under Art.227 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and decree passed by District Judge, Solapur on 13.02.1984 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 08.12.1981 whereby Petitioner's suit for eviction was dismissed.

(2.) THE Petitioner Ashok Rajaram Yadav (for short, 'landlord') purchased the suit premises comprising of a room admeasuring 30' x 15' on the ground floor of C.T.Survey No.2068 situated at Barshi, Dist. Solapur from one Vijaykumar by registered sale deed. At the time of purchase of the said room by the landlord, the Respondent Chunilal Ramsukh Joshi (for short, 'tenant') was occupying the said room as tenant. The landlord filed a suit for eviction against the tenant on 23.02.1978 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshi and it was stated therein that he was residing with his cousin Bhimrao Anna Patil alongwith his mother and he does not have any other premises for his own residence. His cousin Bhimrao is also tenant of one Rudrake and they have very small place where Bhimrao also carries on his business. Accordingly Plaintiff pleaded that he required the premises in question for his personal use and in case decree for eviction was refused he would suffer greater hardship. The tenant contested the claim of the landlord and averred in the written statement that the suit property was commercial premises where the tenant is carrying on his grocery business for the last 30 to 35 years. The tenant submitted that shop of grocery was his only business and source of income and if he is evicted from premises in question, he would starve and would have no means of livelihood. On the other hand, the defendant averred that Plaintiff was doing business of extracting silver and gold and he was already in possession of sufficient accommodation and, therefore, he would not suffer any hardship in case decree for eviction was refused. The parties led evidence and the trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties held that Plaintiff has not been able to establish his bonafide need and greater hardship would also not be caused to him if decree for eviction was not passed. The landlord carried the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 8.12.81 in appeal to the District Court. The appellate Court held that landlord has been able to establish his reasonable and bonafide need for the disputed premises but greater hardship would be caused to the tenant in case decree for eviction was granted and accordingly dismissed the landlord's appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr.Kumbhkoni, the learned counsel for the tenant supported the finding recorded by the appellate court on the question of comparative hardship. He also tendered affidavit in reply of Shri Govind Chunilal Joshi, the legal representative of the tenant. In the affidavit in reply it has been stated that during pendency of the writ petition the landlord has purchased a house property being C.T.S. No. 1607 comprising of 5 rooms and 1 hall by way of registered sale deed and that the landlord has already shifted to the newly purchased house. In support of his affidavit in reply, voters list and other documents have been placed on record to show that the landlord and his family members are staying at the newly purchased house.