MADHUKAR SADASHIV PARKHI Vs. SATYABHAMABAI GANESH SAKRIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition was a tenant of three rooms belonging to the respondents-landlords situated at Budhwar Peth, Pune. By a notice dated 4th July, 1971 his tenancy was sought to be terminated on the grounds that he has not been observing the terms and conditions of the rent note and that he was occupying more space than that was given to him on rent and further he was causing nuisance and annoyance by keeping certain articles in the stair case. It was also alleged in the notice as well as in the suit that was transferred to Bhimanagar Ujani Project where he was allotted suitable accomodation and for more than one year before filing of the suit, he has not used the premises leased out to him and has kept it closed without any reasonable cause. A claim was also made in the notice as well as in the suit that the landlords require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their own occupation.

(2.) In his written statement, the tenant denied the allegations made in the suit. He also contended that the rent charged was excessive and therefore, standard rent should be fixed. He denied the allegation that he has acquired suitable residential quarters at the Bhimanagar project permanently and according to him his transfer was temporary and he was likely to be retransferred to Pune. He also contended that his wife was ailing and required medical help which was not available at Ujani and, therefore, he required the suit premises at Pune for the use of his wife. He also contended that he was also using the suit premises all along.

(3.) In support of their case plaintiffs examined Shridhar-Plaintiff No. 6, Suman-plaintiff No. 2, Damodar Devare-the Deputy Engineer from the Public works Department, whereas the defendant examined himself. After framing the necessary issues and appreciating the evidence on record the learned Judge of the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have proved that they required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their own use and occupation. The trial Court also found that the plaintiffs have proved their case about the nuisance and annoyance. It further recorded a finding that the defendant is not using the suit premises for over 6 months before filing of the suit and he has also acquired suitable alternate accomodation at the place of his work and, therefore, he does not require the suit premises any longer. In view of these findings, the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Pune ultimately decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.