SAKARCHAND B GUJRATHI Vs. TRIBHUWANDAS LOHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Special Civil Applications are disposed of by a common judgment because the landlord Sakarchand Gujrathi is common in all the three matters. He is the respondent in the petition filed by the tenants, whereas he is the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2566 of 1973. This is the common factor that the petitioner Sakarchand Bhiamdas Gujarathi is the owner and the landlord of an open piece of land bearing City Survey Nos. 2557 and 2597, situated at Amalner, in District Jalgaon. It appears that the petitioner Sakarchand Gujrathi has created identical plots and has let them out to the tenants. It appears that the tenants were directed to have their Kutchha construction and to carry on business in the said Kutchha construction. Tribhuwandas Vithaldas Lohana was a tenant in Plot No. 1, Eknath Rupla Mistry and Vasant Rupla Mistri are the tenants of Plot No. 2, and Subhash Khemchand Mistri, the tenant of Plot No. 5. The landlord-petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2566 of 1973, filed an application under section 13(1)(i) of Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 with the allegation that he wants to reconstruct the said plots and construct some shops on the suit land. He, therefore, obtained necessary permission for the construction alongwith the sanction for the plan for the construction from the Amalner Municipality on or about December 7, 1967. He asked his tenants to vacate the premises so that he could construct those plots. The tenants refused to give vacant possession of the plots to the petitioner on some pretext or other. Ultimately, the petitioner landlord by his notice dated December 8, 1969 terminated the tenancy of the tenants and thereafter filed Regular Civil Suits against the tenants for the recovery of possession on the grounds that the premises are required bona fide and reasonably by the landlord for erection of a new building. In the plaint it is specifically mentioned that he had sufficient and necessary funds for the purposes of the new construction. The opponents denied that he had sufficient funds to construct the new building. They also challenged the bona fides of the landlord and reasonable requirement thereof as contemplated by section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

(2.) The trial Court after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that the landlord had not proved his reasonable and bona fide requirement, and in the result dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decree of dismissal of the suit, the landlord-plaintiff filed an appeal in respect of all the three matters to the District Judge, Dhulia. The Civil Appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1972 was heard by the District Judge, Dhulia, whereas the other two appeals, viz. Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1973 & 96 of 1973, were placed before the Assistant Judge, Dhulia who allowed those appeals, by his judgment and decree dated May 3, 1975. Against the said judgment and decree the tenants have presented Special Civil Application Nos. 1798 of 1975 and 1799 of 1975. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties consented to argue all the three matters together and agreed to dispose of the three matters by a common judgment.