BATUBHAI MALUBHAI Vs. RAMPYARIBAI BHAULAL KANWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner challenges the order dtd. 31/10/84 passed by the District Judge, Nashik in Civil Appeal No.130/82. That appeal was filed by the Respondent challenging the Judgment and decree dtd.3/3/82 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yeola, in Civil Suit No.30 of 76. That Civil Suit was filed by the petitioners claiming therein, that they are owners of house bearing C.T.S No.1411, situate at Yeola. According to the averments in the plaint Rampyaribai Kanwaj-Respondent in the present petition was a tenant of the suit premises. The landlord sought decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay rent. The trial Court recorded findings in favour of the landlord and decreed the suit. In the appeal filed by the Respondent, the Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and held that the suit filed by the petitioner was itself bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. As a result, appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed.

(2.) Therefore, in the present petition what is challenged is the order passed by the Appellate Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged before me that the original tenant of the suit premises was Bhaulal and after his death his widow became the tenant of the suit premises. According to him, the heirs of original tenant take the tenancy as joint tenants and therefore, suit could have been filed by the landlord against the widow of the original tenant. It is however to be seen here that perusal of the plaint shows that the case made out in the plaint was that it is the Respondent who was the only tenant of the suit premises. The plaint does not refer to original tenant Bhaulal. It is not the case of the petitioner, that the original tenant's tenancy rights have been inherited by the Respondent alone. Therefore, the case is contrary to the pleading in the plaint. It is to be seen here that before me it is undisputed position that original tenant of the suit premises was Bhaulal and he died leaving behind, Rampyaribai and other legal representatives also. Admittedly, demand notice has not been given to the other tenants of the suit premises and they are also not joined as defendants in the suit. Therefore, in my opinion, no fault can be found with the order of the Appellate Court dismissing the suit. Petition has no substance.

(3.) In the result, therefore, petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to cost.