NATWARLAL PRANBHAI THAKKAR Vs. DWARKADAS B THAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 647 of 1968 for a declaration that he was a tenant in respect of a room bearing No. 16, in the misses known as Jammu Bagh situated at Shivaji Chowk, Kalyan. He also asked for possession of the said room. One Mule was the tenant in respect of the said room. The said Mule wanted to surrender his tenancy rights in favour of the landlord. The petitioner Natwarlal Thakkar and the said Mule had been to the landlord on July 14, 1968. At that time, Mule passed a writing surrending his tenancy rights in favour of the landlords Nos. 1 and 2. Muley had already paid the rent for the month of July 1968. There was a talk between the landlords and the petitioner and the landlords agreed to let out the said premisses in favour of the petitioner and in token of completed contract of tenancy the rent-receipt (Exhibit 41) was passed showing the commencement of the tenancy with effect from August 1, 1968. The rent-receipt was passed on July 15, 1968. According to the petitioner, he took possession of the said room on the same day, i.e. on July 15, 1968. On July 18, 1968 when the petitioner went to the room to keep the articles, he found two locks on the room and an additional bolt was fixed to the door. He also received a notice on July 18, 1986 from the landlords, which was dated July 16, 1968, stating that landlord did not desire to give the premises on rent. Se he filed a suit on July 20, 1968 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kalyan, for declaration of his tenancy rights and possession of the suit premises. The respondents resisted the said suit and contended that it was a contigent contract. It was agreed that the original defendant No. 3 in case did not like to have the suit premises for his business, the same would be given to the petitioner. It was further contended that the suit as filed by the petitioner was not maintainable and that there was no completed contract of tenancy.

(2.) The petitioner also filed another suit, being Civil Suit no. 622 of 1968, against respondents under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on the ground that he was dispossessed within the period of 6 months and that he should be restored to possession. Both the suits were heard together.

(3.) The learned trial judge after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, held by his judgment and order dated November 28, 1972, that the Regular civil Suit No. 622 of 1968 stands dismissed for all the reliefs. It was held that the plaintiff was not put in possession on July 15, 1968. However, Regular Civil Suit No. 647 of 1968 was decreed for all the reliefs. It is declared that the plaintiff is a lawful monthly tenant of the suit tenement and he has right to posses the same. The respondents were directed to give vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within two months from the date of the decree. The trial Court also directed to make an injury into the future mesne profits from the date of the suit till delivery of possessions.