ANIRUDHHA RAMKRISHNA KARLEKAR Vs. JANKIBAI RAGHUNATH BEDEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OUT of these two petitions, Writ Petition No. 2677 of 1983 is preferred by the tenant-original defendant and Writ Petition No. 4128 of 1983 is preferred by the landlady-original plaintiff. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as tenant and landlady for the sake of convenience.

(2.) THE landlady filed a suit against the tenant for possession of suit premises comprising of a shop on the grounds of illegally obstructing the use of open passage in front of the shop, causing harassment by making false allegations against her, causing nuisance and annoyance to the neighbours and on the ground of bona fide requirement of the said premises by her and her daughter-in-law specifically stating that the tenant had acquired suitable alternate accommodation and did not require the suit premises. The trial Court accepted the landladys case and held that she was in bona fide need of the shop, that the tenant did not require the suit premises and that the conduct of the tenant amounted to annoyance within the meaning of section 13 (1) (c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act ). By its judgment dated 13th June, 1979 in Civil Suit No. 2713 of 1975, the trial Court decreed the suit. The decree was confirmed in appeal vide order dated 13th June, 1983 in Civil Appeal No. 561 of 1979. However, the learned Appeal Judge did so only on the ground that the tenant was using the suit premises illegally and against the terms and conditions of the agreement as regards open space in front of the shop was concerned. Other seven issues framed by him were decided in favour of the tenant.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the above order in appeal, both the parties filed in this Court separate writ petitions which came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge. One of the issues raised before the learned Single Judge was whether the provisions of section 13 (1) (c) of the Bombay Rent Act were applicable to the premises other than residential premises. This issue assumed importance as the suit premises were admittedly not residential premises and the fact that the tenant was convicted of using the premises illegally was according to the learned Single Judge, prima facie to attract the provisions of section 13 (1) (c ). The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that ordinarily the provisions of section 13 (1) (c) should apply to all premises whether residential or otherwise. However, in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of (Ganpat Ladha v. Shashikant Vishnu Shinde) A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 955, in the context of section 5 (11) (c), the learned Judge felt that section 13 (1) (c) might also not apply to premises other than residential premises. It is for this reason that the learned Single Judge made reference to the Honble Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for adjudication of the following questions :