VISHWANATH SADASHIV CHITALE Vs. GANGADHAR VINAYAK HASABNIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is occupying one room in House No. 446-B/3 situated at Shaniwar Peth, Pune, as tenant. The petitioner was serving in the Water Works Department and on January 1, 1975, given quarter at Holkar-Bridge Water Works as his presence was required at the site for all hours. The respondent-landlord terminated the tenancy by notice dated March 19, 1975 and instituted suit on June 12, 1975 in the Small Causes Court at Pune for recovery of possession. The three grounds on which possession was sought were : (a) that the conduct of the tenant amounted to nuisance and annoyance, (b) that the suit premises were not used for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit, and (c) that the tenant had acquired suitable alternate premises.

(2.) THE trial Court, recording evidence, held that the grounds of nuisance and non-user were not established. The ground of securing alternate accommodation was also not established, as the tenant proved that accommodation at Holkar Bridge Water Works was a temporary one and in fact was vacated by the tenant on February 21, 1977, that is long prior to the decision of the suit by the trial Court. Indeed, the tenant retired from service in the year 1980. On the strength of all these findings, the trial Judge dismissed the suit.

(3.) MR . Thorat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant submitted that the finding of lower appellate Court is, on the face of it, perverse and cannot be sustained. There is considerable merit in the submission of learned counsel. The undisputed facts are that the tenant was working in Water Works Department and was allotted quarters on January 1, 1975 because of certain work undertaken at Holkar Bridge. The premises were vacated by the tenant on February 28, 1977 on completion of that work. The tenant examined his superior Bhosale, who was working as Mechancial Engineer, and Bhosale has deposed that the quarter was allotted to the tenant for a short duration as his presence was required at the site for all hours. The lower appellate Court proceeded to discard the evidence of the tenant and his witness Bhosale on the specious ground that Bhosale did not produce documentary evidence to substantiate his say. The lower appellate Court also observed that the tenant had made an application on September 12, 1974 for allotment of quarters at the site and that indicates that the allotment was not for a short duration and for carrying out expressly the specific work. The finding is entirely incorrect and contrary to clear-cut evidence on record. The evidence of the tenant and Bhosale leaves no manner of doubt that the quarters were allotted for a short duration and by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the tenant had acquired suitable alternate accommodation. The lower appellate Court also failed to appreciate the importance of the fact that the quarters were taken away even before the trial Judge decided the suit and the tenant thereafter retired in the year 1980, and had all along resided in suit premises. In my judgment, the decision of the lower appellate Court is unsustainable and is required to be reversed.