KISANRAO MADHAVRAO BARTAKKE Vs. NARAYAN DHONDI SHETE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the original tenant-defendant in a litigation arising under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Home Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act'). The learned Single Judge who heard this petition felt that there is an apparent conflict between the two judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court with regard to the requirement of framing an issue under the latter part of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Rent Act. Hence by a reasoned order the learned Judge referred the issue to a larger Bench. However, since the matter appears to be a small one, the learned Chief Justice hag marked the entire petition for being disposed of by this Bench. Hence we have heard the parties on the question referred to us as well as on the general merits of the petition. This is a usual litigation between a landlord and a tenant.

(2.) The tenanted premises are two rooms, one facing the road and consists of six khanas and one behind. They are situate in Subhasb Peth at Akluj in Sholapur District. The petitioner has been a monthly tenant since about 1952 and is conducting his tailoring shop in the premises. The landlords terminated the tenancy by a notice dated 7-11-1970 and filed a suit for possession on 101-1971. Two grounds were alleged for claiming possession. One was that the defendant was a defaulter and had not made payment of rent. The other was bona fide requirement of the landlord for occupation, in that his elder son needed the premises for opening a new shop and a new business of his own in those premises. It was added that the son might go and stay in the premises for the purpose of doing the said business.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant filed a written statement and challenged all the allegations in the plaint. He also pleaded that even it the Court came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine, greater hardship will be caused to him. The landlord had alternative accommodation and it was not necessary to hand over any part oi the premises to the landlord.