NAGUBAI NAMDEO CHAUDHARY Vs. SUDAM BABURAO BAGUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the final Judgment and Decree dated 25/09/2002 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Dhule in R.C.A. No.146 of 2000.

(2.) The back-ground facts of the case are as under.

(3.) The petitioners herein, who were original defendants, resisted the claim of the plaintiffs vide their Written Statement at Exh. 12. They have stated that the suit property is not owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants are not informed by the original owner Tulsabai about the alleged transfer. The plaintiffs have not filed the sale deed on the record at the time of institution of the suit till today. The suit property was taken on rent by Namdeo Hiraji Chaudhary and after his death, all his legal representatives became tenants of the suit property. The plaintiffs are having knowledge of the said legal representatives of Namdeo Hiraji but they have not made parties to them. Therefore, the suit suffers for non joinder of necessary parties. It is further denied by the defendants in Written Statement that the suit property is in dilapidated condition. It is contended by the defendants that the notice Under Section 195(3) of Maharashtra Municipalities Act (for short ' the Act ') was issued by using influence to pressurize defendants and the said notice is illegal. Defendants have given reply to the plaintiffs. But, without considering the said reply, they have filed the false Suit. It is further contended by the original defendants that they are in possession of suit property for more than 50 years and they are the old tenants. The owner of the suit property namely Tulsabai Chaudhary was trying hard to get the suit property from the defendants illegally and she was harassing them. They have stopped accepting the rent from the defendants with some ulterior motive. Therefore, the defendants have deposited the rent of Rs. 9/- per month in the post office at Dhule. They were and are ready and willing to pay the rents. They have not committed any default in payment of the rent. The owner Tulsabai never effected any repairs of the suit property and the suit property was being repaired by the defendants and they have taken the necessary care to keep the suit property in good condition. Despite of the necessary care taken, the suit property being on the ground floor, due to percolation of rain water through roof, the wooden beams are damaged, so also the plaster of the walls was removed. The original land lady Tulsabai unnecessarily caused damage to the suit property with a view to evict the defendants from the suit house. It is further stated that the original land lady and plaintiffs have caused obstruction to the defendants in the work of repairs of the suit property. Therefore, R.C.S. No.308 of 1994 was filed by the defendant No.2 and his father Namdeo Hiraji against Tulsabai Shivram Chaudhary and others. One son of the defendant is in Gujarath but he also used to come to Dhule and all the applicants are the heirs of Namdeo Hiraji along with their families are residing in it. There is no other property at Dhule in their possession and they are in need of the suit property.