MOHAN KEVALCHAND DHADIWAL Vs. SADASHIV SAWALARAM GAIKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties were heard on the earlier date. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have taken an exception to the Decree of eviction passed under the Bombay Hotel and Lodging Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act").

(2.) The suit property subject matter of the dispute is a land bearing plot No. 5 out of survey No. 235/B-2B situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Nasik Road, Nasik. The original owner (original plaintiff) Sadashiv executed a registered lease dated 28th October, 1948 in favour of Kewalchand Dhadiwal (original tenants) and predecessor of the petitioners. The lease was for a period of 10 years in respect of the said plot No. 5 which was stated to be an open plot (the Plot No. 5 is hereinafter referred to as "the suit plot").

(3.) After the suit plot was let out, a structure was built upon the said plot by the original tenant. It must be noted here that after the demise of the original tenant in the year 1966, the original plaintiff filed a suit for eviction by invoking the provisions of 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act. The ground pleaded was that the original plaintiff requires the suit plot for erection of a new budding. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The decree was reversed in Appeal. It appears that on 18th December, 1969 the original plaintiff obtained a permission for construction of a building. On the basis of the said permission, in June 1970 a notice was addressed by the original landlord to the legal representatives of the original tenant. By the said notice, the tenancy was purportedly terminated and a demand was made for delivery of vacant possession. Subsequently, in the year 1973, a fresh suit for eviction was filed by the original plaintiff on the same ground under section 13(1)(i) of Bombay Rent Act. The said suit came to be dismissed. The decree of dismissal was challenged by the original plaintiff by preferring an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the original plaintiff expired. By the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 13th January 1993, the learned Additional District Judge interfered with the decree of dismissal passed by the trial Court and a decree for possession was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. It is this decree which is made the subject matter of challenge by filing the present writ petition.