RAJENDRA MURALIDHAR KADAM Vs. PRAKASH VITTHAL RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Chaitanya Nikte, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.Akshay Pai, learned counsel for the respondent, at length.

(2.) By this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), the applicants, hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants', have challenged the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2013 passed by the learned 5th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court at Pune in Civil Suit No.161/2011 as also the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2018 passed by the learned District Judge-18, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No.33/2015. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit under Sections 15, 16(1)(g) and 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, 'Act') and directed the defendants to hand over possession of two rooms admeasuring 225 sq. ft. along with passage located towards front portion i.e. Western side of ground floor of CTS No.149, as more particularly described in paragraph-1 of the plaint. Aggrieved by this decision, the defendants preferred appeal. By order dated 23.10.2018, the District Court decreed the suit under Sections 15 and 16(1)(g) of the Act and declined to pass decree under Section 16(1)(n) of the Act. It is against these orders, the defendants have instituted present C.R.A. It appears that during pendency of the appeal, defendant No.2 Dilip Kadam expired and his L.Rs. were brought on record.

(3.) During the course of hearing, Mr. Nikte has tendered draft amendment seeking addition of grounds. As the C.R.A. is pending for admission leave to amend is granted. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith. The learned Counsel were also asked to address this Court as to whether the respondent can support eviction decree and attack the findings rendered by the District Court under Section 16(1)(n) without filing C.R.A./cross objection in the light of the decision of Apex Court in Banarsi Vs. Ram Phal, (2003) 9 SCC 606.