TARAMATI BHAGWANT PURANIK Vs. GOPAL SHRIDHAR BHALERAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY both these petitions, the same orders passed by the subordinate Courts are challenged. Therefore, both the peititons can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.

(2.) IT appears that civil suit No.531 of 1971 was filed by one G.S. Bhalerao of whom the petitioners in writ petition No.5811 of 1987 are the legal representatives, for a decree of eviction against one Bhagwant Purnik of whom the petitioner in writ petition No.360 of 1987 is a legal representative under the Bombay Rent Act. The suit was for recovery of possession of two rooms on the eastern side of the house owned by the plaintiff. These two rooms were occupied by the original defendant Bhagwant as a tenant. The decree was sought by the plaintiff on the ground that the landlord needs the suit premises for his bonafide occupation. The Trial Court, however, found against the landlord and dismissed the suit by an order dated 16th June 1983. The appellate Court in the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff landlord reversed the finding recorded by the Trial Court and held that the landlord has established his bonafide need of the suit premises. The Appellate Court, however, passed a decree for partial eviction of the tenant from the suit premises viz. hall which was marked by letter 'C' in the map in the Commissioner's report. Both the parties, feeling aggreieved by the decree of partial eviction, have filed these two petitions challenging the order of the subordinate Court. In writ petition No.360 of 1987, on behalf of the tenant Taramati, an affidavit has been filed stating therein that presently Arvind Bhalerao and one another brother of the original plaintiff own a separate bungalow at Pune. It is further stated that the landlords have in their possession two big rooms and a portion of the hall in the old house and that they are also in possesion of three vacant and independent blocks in the newly constructed premises. The learned counsel for the tenant therefore submitted that now in view of the availability of these premises, the need of the landlord cannot be said to be existing. The landlords have not filed any affidavit contradicting the allegations made in the affidavit dated 17th Feburary 1998. Therefore, these allegations have to be accepted. It is clear from the allegations made in the affidavit that now with the landlords ample premises are available and it cannot now be said that they are in need of any premises from the tenant.