SUHAS PRABHAKAR NAGARNATH Vs. B T GANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interpretation of the word "family" in the context of the provisions of section 13(1)(I) of the Rent Act is the main question calling for the decision of this Court in these writ petitions. The question involved is common in both the petitions. Landlords are the same, viz., the present petitioners. Only the tenant are different. The defendants (present respondent) will be referred to by their names in the subsequent portion of this judgment.

(2.) One of the tenants is Gangal. He was tenant in respect of a room admeasuring 210 sq. ft. He is the respondent in Writ Petition No. 2603 of 1986. The other tenant is one Mejari. He is also in possession of one room tenement admeasuring identical area of 210 sq.ft. In fact, these are just one-room tenements held by these two respective tenants. Each is partitioned into two parts for the sake of convenience. Essentially, they are one-room tenements. Rent of the premises is also identical Rs. 58.25 per month. In the case of Gangal, he became a tenant of the suit premises in the year 1962. In the case of Mejari, the letting in his favour was from the year 1961. There is no dispute at least in this Court that both the tenants acquired other accommodation for their residence during the course of time, before the instant suit. Gangal acquired a flat in his own name in the year 1977. According to the landlord of the suit premises, the area of the newly acquired flat in a nearby co-operative housing society in 625 sq.ft. Neither party has led any independent evidence about the area of the new flat. Meraji acquired the new flat in Jeevan Shree Society which is at a distance of about two minutes walk from the suit premises. It is the plaintiffs contention that the area acquired by him is 550 sq.ft. According to Mejari, the area of the newly acquired flat is 500 sq.ft. Normally speaking, the Court would have expected the tenant to prove the area occupied by him in the new flat because it is a fact exclusively with in his own knowledge. He has remained satisfied by his own interested evidence to prove the area. Normally speaking, the Court should feel that if it was an error, it would be an error in his own favour and normally, the Court should draw adverse inference against the tenant for not producing document of title describing the area occupied by him. Fact, however, remains that the Lower Courts have not paid much of attention to this aspect of the case and the Lower Court have accepted that uncorroborated evidence of both the tenants viz. that the area of the flats is 500 sq.ft. But I am prepared to assume that the area of both the newly acquired flat is 500 sq.ft and for that purpose, I will ignore the arguments of Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioners landlords that the area must be larger. 4-A Point is that the crucial fact, viz., that after the coming into operation of the Rent Act and after they took on rent the suit premises, both the tenants have acquired other accommodation for residence was never in dispute at all. This is the context in which the question involved in the suit filed by the landlord (present petitioner) against the tenants has got to be examined. The petitioners landlords filed R.A.E. Suit No. 4876 of 1979 against Mejari for possession of the suit premises. The said suit was filed by them against the tenant Gangal. Grounds for eviction urged in the suit were identical :

(3.) The defence of the suit is of some relevance. So far as Gangal is concerned, the plea by way of defence was that since the time when he took the suit premises on rent, the family had grown up; the needs of the family had enlarged and that was the reason why he acquired additional accommodation in the building of the co-operative society referred to in the plaint. The defence further submitted that he and his family are residing at both the premises.