VENUBAI WASUDEO RAMBHAD Vs. NARAYAN LAXMAN RAMBHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Deopujari, learned counsel for the appellants. Nobody has appeared for respondents on 10th, 14th & 15th January & thereafter today.

(2.) By this Second Appeal, the widowed daughter-in-law has challenged the judgment and decree concurrently passed against her, ordering her eviction from house property having Corporation House No.176/0+1 situated in old Ward No. 44, Jagnath Road, Teen Nal Chowk, Nagpur. Regular Civil Suit No.1325 of 1978 filed for eviction from that house by her fatherin- law and his brother came to be decreed on 30.8.1984 after holding that the present appellant had taken forcible possession of part of it and licence to occupy its remaining part was duly terminated. The widow then filed Regular Civil Appeal No.584 of 1984 and said appeal came to be dismissed on 30.1.1989 by 8th Additional District Judge, Nagpur. The appellate Court also found that though widow was claiming right to occupy that house by contending that her father-in-law was duty bound to maintain her, there was no such plea in her written statement. The present Second Appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code has then been admitted in view of Grounds No. 11 and 12. Ground No.12 is in relation to protection available to licensee in view of provisions of C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, while Ground No.11 is on an obligation of father-inlaw to maintain the widow of his pre-deceased son in view of Section 19 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

(3.) During arguments, Shri Deopujari, learned counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that the widow being gratuitous licensee, Ground No.12 is not being pressed by him. The facts on record demonstrate that original appellant before this Court viz., Venubai was wife of Wasudeo, who died on 7.8.1976. The marriage of Venubai was solemnized with Wasudeo in the year 1971-72. Plaintiff No.1 Laxman in Regular Civil Suit No.1325 of 1978 was father of said Wasudeo while plaintiff No. 2 . Ramkrishna was brother of Laxman.. They contended that after marriage with Venubai, Wasudeo wanted to live separately and therefore Laxman with the consent of Ramkrishna, allowed Wasudeo and Venubai to occupy Northern block in the house consisting of a Coapari and Majghar as a licensee without any payment. The occupation was of permissive nature. It is further contended that thereafter Venubai forcibly took possession of middle block in that house. By notice dated 27.7.1978, her licence in respect of said property was revoked and she was asked to vacate entire block including middle block and as she did not vacate, Civil Suit came to be filed. The defence of Venubai was that house itself was allotted to the share of deceased Wasudeo and Wasudeo was owner of that site on the basis of partition and Wasudeo had constructed suit house. It was further contended that she filed a Criminal Case No. 491 of 1977 and as a revenge for that purpose, plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.1325 of 1978. As already mentioned above, 4th Joint Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, has decreed the suit on 30.8.1984. It appears that during the pendency of suit, plaintiff No.2 . Ramkrishna expired and his Legal Representatives were brought on record.