DHANPAL BHARMAPPA GUDALE Vs. APPASAHEB BALKRISHNA MALGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the tenant petitioner, challenging the order of the lower Appellate Court, whereby the petitioner - tenant was sought to be evicted. The controversy arise in this writ petition is that the landlord - respondent sought eviction of the petitioner for his own occupation, as contemplated under section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The contention of the respondent landlord is that the eviction is sought for construction of the building as envisaged under section (13) (1) (i) of the Act. The lower Appellate Court proceeded on the basis that this case squarely falls under section 13 (1) (i) and therefore, having proved the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit in favour of the respondent landlord under section 13 (1) (i) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant, however, submits that assuming that the claim of the respondent for eviction is sought under section 13 (1) (i) of the Act and not under section 13 (1) (g), the lower Appellate Court ought to have considered the matter in the light of sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Act, which reads as follows:-

(2.) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is hereby set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.

(3.) CERTIFIED copy expedited. Petition allowed.