SHANKAR VITHOBA PATIL Vs. RAMJI PREMJI JAVERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are cross-Petitions filed by the landlord and the tenant against the Judgment and decree passed by the Court below. The landlord has challenged the opinion of the lower Court rejecting the ground of permanent construction and subletting. On the other hand, the tenant has challenged the decree for possession passed by the lower Courts on the ground of arrears of rent.

(2.) Briefly stated, the Suit premises were open plot leased by the landlord to the tenant forming part of City Survey No.5879/1A situated at Malegaon Motor Stand, Panchavati, Taluka and District Nashik for shop and business. It is the case of the landlord that the same was let out to the tenant on monthly rent basis to be used for shop or business purpose. It is the case of the landlord that the lease was granted to Defendant No.1, who, later on started using the same for manufacturing activity. Besides, the tenant constructed permanent structure without the prior permission of the landlord as also sublet the suit premises to Defendants 2 to 5. It is the case of the landlord that the tenant has changed the original user of the demised premises. In addition, the landlord in the Suit filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik asserted that the tenant was in arrears for a period of more than six months from 1st August 1977, for which reason, had issued demand notice to the tenant on 14th July 1978 which was duly served on the Defendant No.1/tenant. However, the tenant failed and neglected to pay the arrears as demanded within the stipulated time, thereby, committing default and liable to be evicted on that count. Broadly on these allegations, the Suit came to be filed against the tenant for eviction and for vacant and peaceful possession of the Suit premises. It is common ground that after receipt of the notice dated 14th July 1978, the tenant did not raise any dispute regarding standard rent by filing application in that behalf.

(3.) The Defendants filed written statement and contested the Suit for eviction. The written statement was later on amended. As per the amended written statement, the Defendants asserted that though tenant was monthly tenant and the rent was payable monthly, the same were let out for the purpose of manufacturing activity. It is the case of the Defendants that even before taking the demised premises on lease, the tenant and his family members were engaged in business of casting, turning, running, iron smith, machine turning and making of spare parts of machinery which was a joint family activity. The lease was taken in the name of Defendant No.1 as the karta of the joint family. It is then asserted that in due course, the brothers formed a partnership firm, which, however, was dissolved on 15th February 1969. It is the case of the Defendants that after dissolution of the firm, there was separation of the joint family and each brother thereafter carried on independent business from the suit premises. According to the Defendants, since the premises were let out for manufacturing process, the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act') had no application. For that reason, the demand notice sent by the landlord was invalid. Inasmuch as, if it is a case of manufacturing process, in that case, the tenancy would be on year-to-year basis and the termination notice could not have been less than six month's tenure. The Defendants denied that any unauthorised permanent structure has been erected in the suit premises or that the tenant has sublet the suit premises. It is the case of the Defendants that the brothers of the Defendant No.1 continued to remain in occupation of the suit premises along with the Defendant No.1 even after the separation of the joint family. In that sense, it was not a case of unlawful subletting as alleged.