BHALCHANDRA VISHWANATH KALVE Vs. TULSHIRAM ASARAMJI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller, Mangrulpir under section 13(3)(i), (ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order against the respondent claiming that the suit premises is a joint family property and he himself is the Karta of the joint family. The respondent was inducted as a tenant at the rent of Rs. 12/-P.M. in the year 1954. Later on rent was increased to Rs. 25/- because the respondent had taken additional hall on the second floor. It was contended that respondent was habitual defaulter in making the payment of rent. From 1.6.1989 to 31.01.1991 the total rent due from him was Rs. 783/-. He further contended that he had retired from service and he bona fide required the suit premises for his own occupation as he had no other house to live at Mangrulpir. He sought permission to issue quit notice on these grounds.

(2.) Respondent contested the application denying that he was habitual defaulter and he was in arrears of rent and that petitioner bona fide required the premises for his occupation. According to him the house needed repairs and with permission of the landlord he had spent money on repairs and that amount was adjusted against the rent. He mainly contended that the petitioner was not a landlord nor he was Karta of the joint family. According to him the property was standing in the name of his brother and the petitioner had no right to issue quit notice to him and he had no locus standi to file such application seeking permission.

(3.) After hearing the parties, the Rent Controller rejected the application mainly on the ground that petitioner's mother was the landlady and she had inducted the respondent as a tenant and the respondent was paying the rent to her by sending money order which were received by her. It was found that property was recorded in the name of Arvind Kalve, the brother of the petitioner, and after the mother said Arvind Kalve had become the owner of the property. Rent Controller held that present petitioner had failed to prove that property is joint family property and he is Karta or manager of the said family. In the result application came to be rejected.