SUDHAKAR G. PATIL Vs. DINKAR SHRIDHAR TAMHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the decree passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge of Pune allowing Civil Appeal No. 345 of 1981. That appeal itself was from the decree of the dismissal of the suit, being Civil Suit No. 137 of 1976 by the Small Causes Court Judge of Pune. The respondent is the owner and therefore, the landlord of the suit premises which consist of a flat in a fashionable locality of Pune. That flat is in Model Co-operative Housing Society. Sometime in the year 1962 the first petitioner took the suit premises on rent in his own name. The evidence on record shows that subsequently his younger brother, who was studying at the time when the suit premises were taken on lease joined the first petitioner in the suit premises.

(2.) SOME years thereafter, the first petitioner, who is working with the Bank of Maharashtra, was transferred from place to place. The judgment of the appeal Court below shows that wherever the first petitioner was transferred he was provided with accommodation by the Bank. The respondent, therefore, filed a suit for possession of the suit premises on the ground that the first petitioner, his tenant, has after the coming into force of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Rent Act", acquired alternative suitable accommodation. The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial judge.

(3.) MR . Sakhardande, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, has argued that it was an error on the part of the Court below to hold that the lease was in the name of the first petitioner only. All the available evidence shows, according to Mr. Sakhardande, that the suit premises were taken on lease for and on behalf of the joint family of which the second petitioner is a member. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned Assistant Judge to take into consideration the requirement of the second petitioner who is staying in the suit premises while deciding the question of acquisition of alternative suitable accommodation.