RAMUMAL SOMUMAL SINDHI Vs. KANTIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents are owners of house bearing No. 563 situated at Sadar Bazar, Solapur and two rooms out of this house were leased out to petitioner No. 1 on rent of Rs. 13/- per month. Petitioner No. 2 is the brother of petitioner No. 1's son-in-law. The landlady terminated the tenancy and instituted suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur, for recovery of possession on two grounds, namely (1) default in payment of rent and (2) unlawful sub-letting by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 2. The ground of default was not established and no longer survives for consideration.

(2.) THE trial Court, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that petitioner No. 1 had unlawfully sublet the suit premises to petitioner No. 2. The landlady claimed that petitioner No. 1 left Solapur and shifted to Osmanabad where this son was carrying on business and thereupon some time in year 1974, petitioner No. 1 sublet the premises to petitioner No. 2. The petitioners, on the other hand, claimed that petitioner No. 1 had not shifted his residence to Osmanabad but he used to visit Osmanabad off and on. Petitioner No. 1 also claimed that petitioner No. 2 is a blind person and is residing with him over several years. Petitioner No. 2 entered the witness box and claimed that he is residing with petitioner No. 1 in the suit premises since year 1952. On behalf of the landlady, only the rent collector was examined while petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 entered the witness box. The trial Judge held that as petitioner No. 1 had shifted to Osmanabad because the suit notice and the suit summons were served on petitioner No. 1 at Osmanabad, the conclusion is inescapable that petitioner No. 1 had sublet the premises to petitioner No. 2. The finding recorded by the trial Judge on the issue of sub-letting was confirmed in appeal by Assistant Judge, Solapur, by judgment dated 31st October, 1980 and these judgments are under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the petition succeeds and judgment dated November 20, 1979 passed by Fourth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur, and judgment dated October 31, 1980 passed by Assistant Judge, Solapur in Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1980 are set aside as far as decree for possession is concerned. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.