RAJABHAU GYANBA WAGHMARE Vs. KASHINATH SIDDHLING KALYANAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally.

(2.) This is a tenant's petition challenging the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 10th December, 1996 in Civil Appeal No.316 of 1993, allowing the Appeal filed by the present respondent-landlord and passing a decree of eviction against the tenant. The decree has been passed on the ground of bonafide need. In the plaint it is the case of the plaintiff that he is presently residing in rented premises and, therefore, he needs the suit premises for his bonafide occupation. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The landlord-respondent filed an Appeal against that order of the Trial Court dated 6.8.1993 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.76 of 1986. The Appellate Court allowed the Appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that apart from House Nos. 1343, 1384, 1386, the landlord has two other properties, namely, property no. 720 and 678 and therefore, the need of the landlord is not genuine. Perusal of the order of the Appellate Court shows that the Appellate Court has considered the properties nos.1343, 1384 and 1386. The Appellate Court has found that property no.1343 is a shop premises properties nos.1384 and 1386 are open sites. So far as the properties nos. 720 and 678 are concerned, the deposition of the landlord shows that neither these properties have been put to the landlord nor any details regarding these properties have been given. The petitioner tenant in his deposition also does not refer to these properties. Thus the contention of the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner in this regard, has no substance. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the premises occupied by the respondent-landlord are not rented premises as claimed by him. However, perusal of the plaint shows that it is a specific claim made by the plaintiff that the premises which are occupied by him, presently belong to one Sangekar and that he is residing there as a tenant. Perusal of the written statement of the tenant shows that there is no specific denial that the property where the landlord is presently residing is not owned by the person Shri Sangekar but by the landlord himself. There is no evidence produced on record by the tenant to believe the claim of the landlord that the house in which he is presently residing, does not belong to him and he is residing there as a tenant. This submission of the tenant also has no substance. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the respondent-landlord has not brought any material on record to show that the landlord of the respondent is pressing him to vacate the premises. He contended that Sangekar, to whom that house belongs has not been examined. Relying on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court 1987 Mah.R.C.J 530) in the case of Panchal Manilal Chhaganlal and another v/s. Mistry Mulshankar Chhotelal, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the word of the landlord on oath is not sufficient to establish that his landlord wants him to vacate the premises, presently occupied by him as tenant and for that purpose the respondent's landlord should have been examined. Perusal of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, referred to above, shows that in that case the landlord was residing in the premises owned by his brother and the premises were previously owned by the joint family. The Court therefore, held that merely from the deposition of the landlord, it is not proved that his own brother was pressing him to vacate the premises. In so far as the present case is concerned, the landlord has stated on oath that Sangekar i.e. his landlord is pressing him to vacate the suit premises. In my opinion, therefore, the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court, relying on the evidence of the landlord that he is residing in the tenanted premises and the landlord of that premises is asking him to vacate those premises is perfectly legal and valid. I see no reason to disturb that finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court.