PADMAKAR BHAGWANTRAO JOSHI Vs. RAJENDRA RAVJI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr Gokhale, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) In this writ petition the concurrent findings recorded by two courts below against the landlord are sought to be challenged.

(3.) The premises in question comprise of one room situated on the ground floor of building 1297, Shukrawar Peth, Subhash Nagar, Pune-2. According to the plaintiffs-landlord the said premises in question were let out to defendant no.1 viz: Dr Rajendra Ravji Shah (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives in the present writ petition) for a rent of Rs.20/- p.m., in the year 1954-55. The said premises is alleged to have been sublet to defendant no.2 -respondent no.2 herein Shri Navjeevan G. Vora. The landlord filed suit in 1980 interalia on the grounds of non-user by defendant no.1 and for acquisition of suitable residence by him at Pandharpur; for the change of user in as much as the premises were let out to defendant no.1 for residence but is being used as godown by defendant no.2, for default in payment of rent, subletting of the suit by defendant no.1 to defendant no.2. The defendants contested the suit and in the written statement set-up the defence that defendant no.2 obtained premises for composite user of residence and business of publication. The defendants no.1 and 2 are brothers. The defendant no.2 continues to be in occupation and none of the grounds is made out. The trial court framed issues and after recording the evidence dismissed the plaintiffs suit on 2.8.1984. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court an appeal was preferred by the landlord without success and the appeal came to be dismissed by appellate court on 18.10.1986. Both the courts concurrently held that the case of the landlord that premises in question were let-out to defendant no.1 is not correct and that in fact the premises were let out to defendant no.2 as tenant. Since defendant no.2 is the tenant, none of the grounds alleged against defendant no.1 can be said to have been made out against defendant no.2.