LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-138

SAKHAWALKAR Vs. SURESH LAHOTI

Decided On January 09, 2009
SAKHAWALKAR Appellant
V/S
SURESH LAHOTI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners now L.Rs. of original (deceased) tenants have filed the present writ petition as both the courts after considering the material and the evidence on record granted the decree of possession in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 landlords on the ground that the petitioner's/ tenants have created /assigned interest/tenancy in favour of original defendant/here respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit property.

(2.) The case of the landlords-respondents for possession of the premises on the ground of bona fide need and unauthorized permanent structure, was rejected. There is no further challenge made against other concurrent findings. The only challenge is made by original tenants/now Legal heirs, with regard to the sub-letting. There is no challenge made even by the subtenants respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

(3.) In the present case, the original tenant (deceased) was doing business of Grocery and stationer}' shop in the suit premises. He was monthly tenant of the earlier landlord. The respondents/landlords purchased the said property and therefore, being owner/ landlords filed the case for possession on various grounds. Some time in the year 1981, the deceased tenant closed the business. The deceased alongwith his son and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 opened a new cloth shop in the said premises. It was without permission of the landlord. As inspite of assurance, the deceased tenant failed to vacate the premises. The first notice Exhibit 47, was issued on 31/3/1981. The said notice was replied below Exhibit 49. The respondents/landlords, therefore, issued a notice on dated 24/3/ 1983 to vacate the premises, which was received by the deceased tenant. The said notice was also replied. There was no reference made about any partnership deed or partnership business. Earlier also notice was issued on 31/3/1983. The suit was filed on 7/3/1984. In this background, therefore, the basic contention based upon the partnership deed between the deceased tenant his son and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 dated 5th April, 1981 is unacceptable. It is clear that the said partnership was created after the demand from time to time made by the landlord and admittedly, after first termination notice as referred above. The partnership deed as observed by the Court below is a camouflaged to cover up the case of assignment/transfer of interest or property by deceased tenant in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.