SUMATIBAI ANANDRAO Vs. PUNAMCHAND P LOHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner/plaintiff/landlady has challenged the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby her Suit for eviction is dismissed which was under section 13(l)(a) and (1) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, "Bombay Rent Act") by holding that there is no change of user of the suit premises and though the Respondent/tenant acquired suitable residence, but still not entitled for possession.

(2.) The basic facts are that the suit premises were given in leave and licence by executing an agreement by the Plaintiff with the Defendants on 10.12.1962 and, therefore, the Defendant is claiming protection under section 15(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The Plaintiff/ Petitioner's case is that it was for residential purposes, whereas Defendant's case is that it was for composite purpose. The Defendant was doing his profession as Income-tax Practitioner and, therefore, using part of the said premises as consultancy office. On 27.4.1982 the defendant sent Money Order which was refused. Again on 5.7.1982 also he refused to accept the money orders. On 24.4.1983 the Petitioner sent demand notice of arrears of rent and terminated the tenancy on 31st May, 1983. On 6.5.1983 Defendant sent arrears of rent which was accepted. On 7.5.1983 he sent the amount of Rs. 5576/-. The Respondent/tenant acquired premises at 797, Bhandarkar Road at Pune. On 20.8.1987 the trial Court dismissed the Suit on all grounds. On 12.1.1991 the learned Appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner. The ground of arrears of rent was not pressed and restricted only to change of user and acquisition of suitable accommodation. Therefore, the present petition.

(3.) The basic lease/ leave and licence agreement dated 10th December, 1962 between the parties provides nowhere that the premises were let out for composite purpose i.e. residential and non-residential. The plain reading shows that the premises were let out for residential purposes. Clause-C contemplates apart from others to pay all charges of electricity for domestic purposes, for consumption of energy and power. The schedule of Articles annexed to the agreement read with the whole document nowhere provides that the premises were let out other than residential purposes. The basic burden lies upon the tenant to prove that it was let out for composite purpose.