STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. USHA SHIRISH KHANDWALA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The Government of Maharashtra, who is the revision applicant before this Court, is the original defendant in RAE and R Suit No.1 of 593/1615 of 1991 filed by the plaintiff for eviction. Admittedly, plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises being flat no.11, admeasuring 1974 sq.ft. situated on the fourth floor in Khetan Bhuvan, Jamshedji Tata Road, Bombay. The building belongs to EK-Omkar Premises Co-operative Society. Admitted fact is that the Government of Maharashtra had taken suit premises from the plaintiff/landlady on leave and licence basis on 29-5-1970 for accommodating the office of the Chief Accounts Officers and the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in Food and Civil Supplies Department. The period of leave and licence as per the agreement was three years. When the premises were taken by the Government, the plaintiff and two others had the membership rights over the suit premises on co-operative basis. On 28-6-1975 the plaintiff became the sole owner of the suit premises. Admittedly in view of amendment in The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (In brief 'Bombay Rent Act') in 1973 , the Government of Maharashtra had become the tenant of the plaintiff. On 1-12-1990 the plaintiff issued notice to the defendant/Government and requested to vacate the premises mainly on two grounds, firstly, the plaintiff wanted to commence private coaching classes in the suit premise and, therefore, she reasonably and bonafide required these premises for personal use by running coaching classes and secondly, since 1975 the Government had not paid arrears of permitted increase in outgoings and on this count, she also claimed an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- being arrears of permitted increase in outgoings, which the tenant has to pay as per the terms of the contract. Notice was received but the Government failed to vacate the premises and to pay the arrears. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears.

(3.) The suit was contested by filing written statement dated 15-12-1991 wherein the claim of the plaintiff for eviction on both the grounds was denied.