PRADIPTA MOHAN CHATTERJI Vs. KASTURI & SONS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, Mr.Sabnis, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1, Mr. Patel, learned Counsel for respondents No.2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 20 in C.R.A.No.46 of 2019 as also Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel for the applicants in C.R.A. No.182 of 2019 and Mr. Dani, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in C.R.A.No.182 of 2019 at length.

(2.) C.R.A.No.182 of 2019 takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2018 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai in 2(a) Appeal No.175 of 2014. By that order, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.1, hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff', and set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2014 passed by the learned trial Judge in R.A.E. Suit No.678/1010 of 2006. The Appellate Court directed the applicants, hereinafter referred to as 'defendants' to handover vacant and peaceful possession of flat No.24 admeasuring 950 sq.ft. on the first floor of 'Kasturi Building' situate at Jamshedji Tata Road, Churchgate Reclamation, Mumbai 400 020 (for short 'suit premises') to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of the order.

(3.) On 05.02.2019, C.R.A. was heard for admission. Mr. Thorat submitted that plaintiff did not assert that the premises have not been used "without reasonable cause" for the purpose for which they were let out for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the Suit. He submitted that as the plaintiff did not plead the essential requirement of Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short 'Maharashtra Rent Act'), the Appellate Court was not justified in decreeing the Suit. He relied upon paragraph 12 of the decision of this Court in C. R. Shaikh Vs. Lilabai D. Rohida, 1981 Mh.L.J. 437.