VIRENDRA LAXMIKANT DUBE Vs. NANDASHRAM LODGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing in view of the request of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 27-11-2018, to decide these Writ Petitions as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months.

(2.) These two Writ Petitions have been filed by the original defendant no.1, challenging the concurrent orders passed by the two Courts below i.e. the Small Causes Court, Nagpur and the Court of District Judge, Nagpur (appellate Court), whereby a suit for ejectment, possession and mesne profits filed by respondent no.1 (original petitioner), has been allowed and counterclaim filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

(3.) The respondent no.1 filed the aforesaid suit on 06-03-2004, before the Small Causes Court, claiming that it had given a notice dated 22-10-2003 to the petitioner and respondent no.2 (original defendants), to pay arrears of rent in respect of the suit property bearing Room No.34 in Corporation House No.601 at Abhyanakar Nagar, Nagpur. It was contended that when the original defendants failed to make payment in terms of the said notice, respondent no.1 was entitled to seek their ejection from the suit property. The original defendants filed their written statement and denied the fact that they were habitual defaulters in payment of rent and that originally they had been put in possession of Room No.17 and that thereafter, respondent no.1 had requested them to shift to Room No.34 as the said Room No.17 was to be repaired. It was contended that in these circumstances, neither respondent no.1 was entitled to claim arrears of rent nor to seek ejectment of the original defendants on such ground. The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective stands and by the impugned judgment and order dated 24-01-2008, the Small Causes Court held in favour of respondent no.1, thereby granting decree against the original defendants (including the petitioner herein). It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner had filed a counterclaim in the aforesaid suit, claiming that since he was a tenant of Room No.17 and not Room No.34 he was entitled to decree of grant of possession in respect of Room No.17. The Small Causes Court took into consideration both the aspects of the matter and by rendering findings in favour of respondent no.1, not only decreed the suit in favour of respondent no.1, but, dismissed the counterclaim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Regular Civil Appeal No.190 of 2008, before the District Court, Nagpur (appellate Court). By the impugned judgment and order dated 28-10-2015, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the decree granted in favour of respondent no.1 and also dismissed the counter claim of the petitioner.