POONA HERALD PVT LTD Vs. URMILA VINOD MOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the Parties.

(2.) Perused the judgments rendered by the Courts below and the relevant documents.

(3.) To state in brief, the present applicants are the original defendants. One Vinod Motee was original landlord. He had initially given suit premises to the defendants on leave and licence basis. In January, 2003 tenancy agreement took place and the mezzanine floor of the premises was vacated by the defendants and taken over by the landlord for his own business of the furniture. The ground floor premises admeasuring 2500 sq.ft. were let out to the defendants for running business of printing press where newspapers, namely Maharashtra Herald and the Poona Herald were printed and published. In May, 2003 original landlord Vinod Motee entered into partnership agreement and partnership deed was executed and registered on 4th May, 2003. In the partnership firm landlord Vinod Motee and his married daughter Namrata Bapat were partners alongwith two others namely Gaurinandan Mangaokar and Kapil Asher. In the the year 2004, the landlord Vinod Motee expired and, therefore, on his death partnership firm was reconstituted. Vinod Motee was replaced by his widow Urmila and thus, his widow and daughter continued to be two other partners in the firm. In August, 2005 the plaintiffs, who included widow, son and daughters of the deceased landlord Vinod Motee, filed the suit for eviction and possession against the defendants on three grounds. Firstly, it was contended that the defendants were not using the suit premises for a period of more than six months for the purpose for which they was taken. Secondly, defendants had made additions and alterations of the permanent nature without consent of the landlord and thirdly, plaintiffs, who were running business of furniture in the mezzanine floor since May, 2003 required the suit premises for themselves. It was contended that it was not convenient for the plaintiff no.1 Urmila widow of the deceased landlord to climb the staircase every now and then for the purpose of business and secondly, they required the ground floor of the premises for expansion of the business. The defendants contested each of the grounds taken up by the plaintiffs.