SUHIBAI CHATARJ CHOPADA Vs. BABU DURGAJI BENDRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30.4.1983 passed by the 5th Extra Assistant Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.342 of 1976. That Appeal was filed by the respondent. It appears that the suit No.2935 of 1972 was filed by the present petitioner on 28.9.1972, claiming that he is landlord of the suit premises of which the respondent is a tenant. The landlord sought decree of eviction against the tenant on three grounds, namely, that the tenant has secured suitable alternate accommodation, that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent and that the tenant has caused nuisance. That decree was challenged in Appeal by the tenant. The Appeal, however, was allowed by the Appellate Court and the decree was set aside. Against the judgment of the Appellate Court the Special Civil Application No.2326 of 1978 was preferred before this Court, which was decided by a judgment dated 21.9.1982. This Court confirmed the finding of the Appellate Court on the question of nuisance and thus held that the landlord was not entitled to a decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground of nuisance. However, so far as the remaining two grounds are concerned, this Court set aside the findings, recorded by the Appellate Court and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Court for de novo decision of the Appeal on those two grounds. The Appellate Court after remand re-heard the Appeal and recorded fresh findings. The Appellate Court again found that the landlord was not entitled for the decree of eviction against the tenant on those two grounds. It is this judgment of the Appellate Court, which is challenged in this petition.

(2.) SHRI Pandit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged before me that the Appellate Court declined to pass a decree in favour of the landlord on the ground that the tenant has secured suitable alternate accommodation for the reason that other accommodation which is secured by the tenant is acquired by him before the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were made applicable to the cantonment. Shri Pandit urged that section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act lays down that a landlord shall be entitled to a decree of eviction against the tenant if "the tenant after coming into operation of this Act has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted to suitable residence." In the submission of Shri Pandit, therefore, as the date of commencement of the Bombay Rent Act is in the year 1947 and as acquisition of the alternate accommodation by the tenant is admittedly, after 1947, the Appellate Court was not justified in setting aside the decree passed in favour of the landlord by the Trial Court on this ground. Now for examining this aspect of the matter, it is relevant to note that admittedly, the suit premises are situated in Pune cantonment. It is an admitted position before me that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act have been made applicable to Pune Cantonment by Notification issued by the Central Government under section

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