SIDHARAM GANPATI MULAGE Vs. BASHIR ELAHIBAKSH TAMBOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Court of Solapur dated 28th August, 1992 in Civil Appeal No. 224 of 1986 allowing the Appeal preferred by the respondents/landlords and decreeing the suit for possession with direction to the petitioners to deliver possession of the suit premises to the respondents on or before 31st October, 1992.

(2.) Briefly stated, the respondents filed Suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 412 of 1980 in the Court of Solapur against the predecessor of the petitioners Shri Ganpati Andappa Mulage, the original tenant-defendant for recovery of rent and possession of the suit No. 376 of 1994 Leelabai Maruti Holkar Vs. property being one shop premises Chaturabai Siddheshwar Javeri, 2009 3 BCR 375. However, according to in Solapur city on the ground of bona fide the petitioners/tenants, the fact that the suit and reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs premises have been completely destroyed due for their personal use and occupation. The to fire does not extinguish tenancy as the said suit however, was dismissed by the trial lease of the suit premises- (which is a shop), Court on the finding that the plaintiffs failed was not only lease of the superstructure but to establish that the suit premises were required by them for their own use and occupation and that greater hardship would be caused to the petitioners/tenants, in the event of decree of conviction being passed.

(3.) As aforesaid, against the said decision, the respondents/landlords carried the matter in appeal, which however, succeeded and also of the site. In such a case, the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of T. Lakshmipathi & ors. Vs. P. Nithyananda Reddy & ors., 2003 5 SCC 150 will have to be invoked to hold that the petitioners' light to pursue the present remedy would still survive. 6. Before examining the above argument decree of possession has been passed against we shall advert to the stand of the respective the petitioners/tenants in relation to the suit party in the pleading. The plaintiffs instituted premises. The Appellate Court has reversed suit for recovery of possession of the suit the finding recorded by the trial Court on premises on the assertion that what was let both the counts for the reasons recorded in the impugned Judgment.