LAWS(BOM)-2008-2-42

DATTATRAYA KRISHNAJI ASALEKAR Vs. SHRAVANA DHONU MORE

Decided On February 27, 2008
DATTATRAYA KRISHNAJI ASALEKAR Appellant
V/S
SHAM SHRAVANA MORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is filed by the original applicant against the dismissal of the application for eviction and possession under Section 13A(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Rent Act").

(2.) The respondent is a tenant in the suit premises, which is part of House No.272, situated at Raviwar Peth, Phaltan, District Satara. According to the applicant, the house is his ancestral property. The respondent was inducted as a tenant in the same. The applicant was in service of the Indian Armed Forces and he retired from the service of Army on 1.8.1987 and he started a shop in a small place at Phaltan. Taking into consideration the size of his family, the accommodation in his possession was too small for his business and residence. Therefore, the applicant bonafide required the disputed premises for occupation of the respondent s residence as well as business. A notice dated 3.11.1987 was served terminating the tenancy of the respondent but as the respondent did not vacate, the applicant filed Application No.19 of 1988 before the Competent Authority, Pune Division, Pune, under Section 13A(1) of the Bombay Rent Act against the respondent for eviction and possession. It may be noted that similar Application Nos. 17 of 1988 and 18/88 were also filed against two other tenants in the same building.

(3.) The respondent contested the application. It was contended by him that he was inducted as tenant by the father of the present applicant. The applicant is not the exclusive owner of the suit property as there has been no partition between the applicant and the said members of his family. Therefore, he cannot be treated as landlord. It was contended that in view of this, the applicant cannot claim eviction and possession of the suit premises for his residence and business and it was also contended that the applicant had some other house at Phaltan and therefore he did not require the suit premises bonafide for residence of himself and the members of his family.