ANWAR NOORMOHAMMED PIRANI Vs. SANTOSH GAJANAN NASKULWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged judgment and order dated 23/02/2018, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Court, Kelapur (Appellate Court), whereby appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed and the decree of possession granted in favour of the petitioner by the Court of Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kelapur (Pandharkawada) (Trial Court), has been set aside.

(2.) The petitioner (landlord) filed suit for possession and recovery of rent in respect of a shop, claiming the said to be admeasuring 395 sq.ft. given on rent to the respondent from 11/06/2008 for 11 months, up to 10/05/2009. It was claimed by the petitioner that the said agreement was in writing, executed on 02/09/2008 for the aforesaid period and it was attested before the Notary on 19/09/2008. As per the said agreement, the aforesaid shop admeasuring 395 sq.ft. was given on rent for the aforesaid period of 11 months to the respondent for an agreed rent of Rs.3900/- per month. The petitioner claimed in the suit that from November, 2008, the respondent failed to pay agreed rent, as a result of which the agreement had come to an end and thereupon, the respondent was illegally in possession of the suit shop. As per the petitioner, on 27/07/2009, a notice was issued to the respondent stating that he had defaulted in the payment of rent from November, 2008 and further that he was illegally in possession of the suit shop beyond the agreed period of 11 months. On this basis, possession was sought from the respondent. As the respondent did not send any reply to the said notice on 23/09/2009, the petitioner filed the aforesaid suit.

(3.) On 31/12/2009, the respondent filed written statement in the aforesaid suit, denying the execution of the agreement. While denying the claims made on behalf of the petitioner in the suit, it was specifically stated in the written statement that there were actually two shop blocks, one admeasuring 200 sq. ft. and other admeasuring 195 sq. ft. It was claimed that the respondent was put in possession by the petitioner in the shop admeasuring 200 sq. ft. from January, 2006 for a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- and a deposit of Rs.50,000/- was also made by the respondent. Thereafter, in 2008, the respondent was put in possession of the other shop block admeasuring 195 sq.ft. at the monthly rent of Rs.1500/- for which a deposit of Rs.30,000/- was made. It was also claimed that there was an oral agreement regarding such tenancy for a period of 10 years. It was also submitted that there was no default in payment of rent on behalf of the respondent and, therefore, there was no cause of action to file the present suit.