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.

(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.

(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.