BADRINARAYAN RAMSUKH RATHI Vs. NICHALDAS TEJBHANDAS SINDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of two houses bearing No. 1163 and No. 667 situated at Rawiwar peth, Poona. Respondent No. 1 is Special Civil Application No. 2203 of 1965 and Respondent No. 1. in Special Civil Application No. 116 of 1966 are the tenants is house No. 1163. There was one more tenant is house No. 667. The petitioner wanted to demolish the original construction on these two houses and have a fresh one building constructed thereon, in place of the two separate houses. He therefore devised a plan of one full-fledged building and then got the said plan duly sanctioned from the Municipality on or about 30th May 1961. He then approached the Tribunal constituted under Section 13 (3b) of the Bombay Rent Act and obtained a certificate from them as required under the said sub-section (3b) of Section 13. He then gave a notice to the three tenants, i. e. , two tenants of house No. 1163 and also the tenant of house No. 667, terminating their tenancy alleging that he reasonably and bonafide required the premises in dispute for the immediate purpose of demolishing them and such demolition was to be made for the purpose of erecting new building on the premises sought to be demolished. The tenancy was terminated by the end of October 1962. He then instituted suits under the Bombay Rent Act against all the three tenants claiming possession of the premises from the three tenants under Section 13 (1) (hh) of the Bombay Rent Act for the purpose of demolishing and constructing a new building thereon, and as required by sub-section (3a) and (3b) of Section 13, he gave an undertaking to the Court and also produced the certificates as required under the said sub-sections.

(2.) HIS suit against the tenant in house No. 667 has ultimately been decreed and decree has been confirmed by the High Court. I am informed that construction in place of old house No. 667, in terms of the plan has already been completed. The two suits against the present respondents in the two Special Civil Applications occupying house No. 1163, however, passed through chequered career. It appears that the original certificates were filed in the suit against the tenant in house No. 667 and the said certificates or copies thereof were not filed in the suits against these two tenants when the suits were instituted and the suit claims were sought to be defeated by these two tenants on the technical ground that such certificates were not enclosed along with the plaint at the time of institution of the suits. Realising the force of the plea of the defendants, the plaintiff withdrew the suits with the leave of the Court, but the tenants preferred appeals to the District Court against the order permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suits. The said appeals were dismissed and then the present two suits were filed by the plaintiff afresh for the same relief. This is why the plaintiff's claim in regard to possession of the house No. 1163 remained pending till this day, even though a part of the construction as contemplated according to the original plan on the plot of house No. 667 has been completed.

(3.) THIS claim was resisted by both the tenants by raising several defences. The plaintiff had alleged that these two houses No. 1163 and No. 667, were adjacent to each other and therefore he wanted to have a fresh construction of one building in place of both these houses according to the plan approved by the Municipality. The defendants denied that these two houses were adjacent to each other. It was denied that plaintiff wanted to demolish the two houses with the object of constructing a new building or that the new construction cannot be had without the demolition of the existing construction. It was alleged that the certificate granted by the Tribunal was invalid. It was also alleged that the tenancy was not duly terminated and that the suit was not properly instituted. It was also alleged that copy of the certificate was not valid and the suit was as good as filed without enclosing the certificate of the Tribunal Plaintiff's claim for bonafide requirements for demolition of the construction was also denied. It was also alleged that the plan as submitted does not satisfy the requirements of Section 13 (3a) of the Bombay Rent Act