RAMCHANDRA DATTATRAYA GANDHI Vs. PUSHPABAI MANOHAR SHETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenants petition against an order of eviction passed by the Appeal Court under section 13 (1) (b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act ).

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows: The respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mahad, being Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 1977 for eviction of the petitioner, the tenant, on the ground that she wanted the premises for herself for her use and occupation under section 13 (1) (g) of the Rent Act. The defendant filed his written-statement. In his written-statement, he contended that he has been in occupation of the said premises from about 1961 and that at the time of the occupation of the premises he had to carry out various repairs and certain alterations and he had to spend about a sum of Rs. 9,000/- for that purpose. He contended that as to how the suit house was in a dilapidated condition and that he had carried out these repairs and alterations for the purpose of making it habitable and tenable and he carried out all these repairs and alterations with the knowledge of the then landlord. He denied that the respondent wanted the premises reasonably or bona fide. He also pleaded that if any decree is passed, he would suffer greater hardship than the respondent, if it is denied to her.

(3.) SINCE in his written-statement, he had set out various items of repairs and alterations as carried out by him much prior to the date when the respondent became the landlady of the premises, she was advised to amend the plaint and plead the ground under section 13 (1) (b) of the Rent Act. In fact, if one looks at the plaint, one would make out that there has been no proper plea at all on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had only pleaded that the defendant has made certain permanent alterations and that is all. The plaintiff has not even set out the particulars of such a plea at all. In fact, the learned Judge ought not to have proceeded with the framing of the issues in this behalf. However, as the matter stood at that stage, issues were framed and inter alia an issue with regard to the allegation that the defendant had erected permanent structure was also framed.