CHINNUPASHABI Vs. FATESINGH SHIKSHAN SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Godbole for the appellants and Shri Jamdar for the respondents. One Hasan Jahagirdar was working as a teacher in the school run by the first respondent Education Institution. While working in that school, he was in need of accommodation and hence a room in a students hostel, run by the first respondent institution, was made available to him. The premises consisted of a hall, admeasuring 20 x 16 along with verandah admeasuring 20 x 10. This Hasan Jahagirdar died on 31st November, 1981. On his death and after passage of some reasonable time, the trustees of the first respondent institution sought the return of the premises. Since the premises were not returned, necessary notices were served and thereafter since the notices were also not honoured, the civil suit bearing No. 120/1983 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Dvn. , Akkalkot. That suit came to be decreed on 5th of August, 1994. Being aggrieved by that judgment and decree, first appeal was preferred by the appellants herein, who are heirs of this Hasan Jahagirdar, to the Court of 5th Additional District Judge, Solapur. The appeal was dismissed and hence being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, this second appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHRI Godbole, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased Hasan Jahagirdar will have to be construed a service tenant protected by section 13 (1) (f) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates, Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Bombay Rent Act ). Section 13 (1) (f) reads as follows:-Section 13. When landlord may recover possession.---

(3.) SHRI Godbole submitted that it was not in dispute that Hasan Jahagirdar was in the employment of the first respondent institution and that the suit premises were made available to him by way of residence. Shri Godbole submitted that the tenant is not necessarily required to pay a rent in money and can be permitted to pay it in kind. He specifically referred section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, whereunder in a lease of immovable property a service rendered can be the consideration for the lease. He drew my attention to the fact that it was the understanding between the parties that apart from his service in the School, Hasan Jahagirdar was to look after the Hostel. Shri Godbole submitted that this service was the consideration for the tenancy. Shri Godbole, therefore, submitted that the premises occupied by Hasan Jahagirdar were covered under the Bombay Rent Act and the first respondent landlord was required to take action under the provisions of that Act only and could not file a civil suit to evict Hasan Jahagirdar and his family members from the suit premises.