HANSRAJ MHADU GANJE Vs. NANABHAU DODHU PAGARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent-original plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the appellant. It was pleaded that by an agreement Exh.41 dated 25th July, 1980 the appellant who was a tenant had relinquished his tenancy rights. It was further contended that as per the agreement the appellant had agreed to remove the structure existing on the land within two years i.e. on or before 25th July, 1982. The appellant refused to remove the structure. The suit thus came to be filed.

(2.) IT is an admitted position that the appellant was inducted on a part of the property identified under Survey No.36 of Sangameshwar Ward, Taluka Malegaon, District Nasik. The open area leased out to the appellant was admeasuring 26 ft x 14 ft. The appellant thereafter put up a structure on the said land. The rent reserved was Rs.25/- per month. There was no agreement in writing when the tenancy was entered into nor thereafter.

(3.) AT the hearing of this Appeal, Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is a statutory tenant. Being a statutory tenant he can only be evicted by following the procedure under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rents Control Act, 1947. It is his contention that he can be evicted only if the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act had been complied with. Otherwise he was protected by Section 12 of the Rent Act. It was contended that even a tenant whose tenancy is terminated is protected by virtue of Section 5(11) of the Rent Act. Only in the event possession had been handed over at the time Exhibit 41 had been executed could it be held that the tenancy was relinquished. In the instant case admittedly the appellant continued in possession and hence the recital in the deed of relinquishment of tenancy without actually handing over possession was of no consequence. The learned Counsel relied on a number of judgments in support of his contention.