SHYAM DATTATRAYA THAKUR Vs. GAJARABAI MOHANLAL RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and decree passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Pune dated 13th December, 1991 in Civil Appeal No. 845/1988 whereby the Appeal preferred by the respondent-tenant was allowed and the suit for possession filed by the petitioner-landlord came to be dismissed. The petitioner had filed Suit for possession amongst others on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement for personal use and occupation of the suit premises, arrears of rent and unlawful subletting. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner-landlord on 29th July, 1988 accepting the"two grounds pressed into service for eviction of the respondent-tenant, namely, bona fide requirement and unlawful subletting. Against the said decision, the respondent-tenant carried the matter in Appeal before the District Judge who in turn allowed the Appeal filed by the tenant and dismissed the suit for possession filed by the petitioner-landlord. This decision is subject-matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(2.) During the course of arguments Counsel for the petitioner stated ort instructions that the landlord was not pressing ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of suit premises and would proceed in the matter only in relation to the ground of unlawful subletting. In the circumstances, I am examining the matter only in the context of ground of unlawful subletting. For the nature of order that I propose to pass, it will not be necessary to advert to all the events that led to the filing of the suit for possession.

(3.) Suffice it to observe that the plaintiff-landlord claims that husband of defendant No. 1 was the tenant in respect of suit premises and after his demise defendant No. 1 not only changed the business which was conducted in the suit premises and started using the premises for some other business, but also allowed the third party to conduct that business from the suit premises on the specious plea that the said business was conducted in the name and style of Chetna Enterprises, a Partnership Firm of defendants 1 to 5 as partners thereof.