RAM SADASHIV SHINDE Vs. KHANDERAO CHINTAMAN PANSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four petitions have been referred to a large Bench for disposal by Sharad Manohar, J. , by his referring order dated 29th March, 1989, since in the opinion of the learned Judge the questions relating to the interpretation of section 13a-1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Bombay Rent Act, fort short), and the right of a stranger to challenge partition in a joint Hindu family, are of great importance.

(2.) THE petitioner original plaintiff filed 10 suits against 10 of his tenants (original defendants respondents) who are in occupation of different rooms in the property bearing House No. 215 situate at Shukrawar Peth, Pune, for recovery of possession of the rooms on the ground of bona fide requirement for his personal use under section 13a-1 of the Bombay Rent Act. Additionally he sought eviction of one of the tenants viz. , Khanderao Chintaman Panse (since deceased), whose heirs are the respondents in petition No. 3569 of 1981, under section 13 (1) (k) of the Bombay Rent Act. The case of the petitioner was that the house property bearing No. CTS 215 was the ancestral joint Hindu family property of his father, himself and his brothers. The respective respondents were the tenants in various rooms of that property. He was serving the Indian Nany. He joined Naval service on 26-11-1960. At that time, while he was in service, the joint family was the owner of the property. He retired from Naval service on 26-11-1970. Thereafter his relations with his father became strained around the year 1972 and a demand for partition was being made by him as well as his brother Shashikant. Subsequently on 26th of March, 1976 mutation entries were made giving effect to a partition between the family members in which partition the portion of the house consisting the suit rooms came to be allotted to his share. Thus he became the landlord of the suit rooms and, therefore, he became entitled to apply for possession from the tenants of the respective rooms. He bona fide required the said premises, as in the partition what the got was all the tenanted premises, and he had no other place to reside and was forced to stay in a temporary shed. He had plans to get married but he was unable to marry for want of residential accommodation. Therefore, he obtained the necessary certificate under section 13a-1 from the authorised officer and terminated the tenancies of the tenants by notice dated 8-6-1976. Thereafter he filed the suits in the Court of the 3rd Additional Small Cause Judge, Pune, on 10th of June, 1976.

(3.) AS far as tenant Panse is concerned, he sought his eviction on the additional ground that Panse had shifted his residence to the premises of his son at Police Quarters and he had kept the premises in his occupation locked for a period of more than six months and on that ground also his tenancy was sought to be terminated. Thus, the plaintiff sought recovery of possession of the rooms in occupation of the respective tenants (in all 11 rooms from 10 tenants) in the various suits. According to his case his father had retained 4 rooms for his own occupation on the first floor, his brother Shashikant was allotted a building in the rear portion of property No 215. His two brothers Vijay and Sharavan were given shares in the open space. One brother who was not mentally sound, was not given any share in the property but, instead, an amount of Rs. 7,000/- was kept in fixed deposit. According to the plaintiff he was an ex-serviceman and as all the property that had been allotted to his share was in the occupation of the tenants, he was entitled to recover possession of the same.