BALAJI VITHOBAJI PAUNIKAR Vs. PURUSHOTTAM VITHOBAJI PAUNIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants before this Court are original defendants and they challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees delivered by the Courts below whereby suit of respondent plaintiff came to be decreed and they were directed to deliver possession of suit premises along with a direction to return furniture therein and also amount of Rs.35,359.37 ps. towards the value of metal goods. The Second Appeal was earlier allowed by this Court on 22.3.2004 but then the said judgment was questioned before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 969 of 2005. As the substantial question of law was not framed while allowing Second Appeal, on 7.2.2005 the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside said judgment and remitted matter back to this Court to frame substantial question of law, if any, and then proceed further in the matter and decide the same in accordance with law.

(2.) Accordingly, I have heard Shri De with Shri Dhore, learned counsel for the appellants . original defendants yesterday and today and Shri Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent . original plaintiff.

(3.) The appellants contend that payment of rent by them to landlord is accepted and as such the appellants have become tenants of landlord and hence the respondent plaintiff cannot evict them. It is further contended that in view of additional grounds allowed to be raised vide order dated 5.4.2006, the appellants have become tenants of new shop block constructed by the landlord and therefore also there is no question of decree in favour of present respondent being maintained. In other words, it is being contended that in view of subsequent events, the said judgments and decrees are rendered infructuous. Lastly, it is contended that even if story of respondent . plaintiff is accepted, the appellants became licensee and therefore the provisions of C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, as applicable then, protect their possession. As permission from Rent Controller is not obtained before institution of suit, the suit deserves to be dismissed.