BALKRISHNA HARISCHANDRA PATIL Vs. MADHUKAR MADHAVRAO DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner herein. The suit was filed by him as Civil Suit No. 1851 of 1987 on 3-12-1987 for eviction of the respondent on the ground of arrears of rent and also bona fide requirement. The Principal Small Causes Court at Pune, on both the grounds granted decree in favour of the petitioner and ordered eviction of the respondent. An appeal being Civil Appeal No. 506 of 1989 was filed before the Additional District Judge, Pune. By the impugned judgment, the lower Appellate Court set aside the decree of eviction and consequently suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) I heard Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Anturkar and Mr. R. S. Deshpande for the respondent.

(3.) THE admitted fact is that the property in suit situated at 4/36, Sahakari Sevakanchi Sahakari Vasahat, Erandawane, Pune was originally belonged to one K. M. Patil. Said K. M. Patil let out the building for residential purpose for the rent of Rs. 250/- in the year 1970. The petitioner herein was recovering the rent from the respondent and used to pass receipts on behalf of the landlord K. M. Patil. The deceased landlord K. M. Patil had sent notice dated 20-4-1982 to the respondent and terminated his tenancy. Thereupon the landlord Shri, K. M. Patil had filed Suit No. 1448 of 1982 against the respondent in the Court of Small Causes, Pune for arrears of rent and also for bond fide requirement. The said suit was dismissed on 8-10-1985 and the respondent tenant was directed to pay the cost of the suit with arrears of rent from 1-1-1981 and also education cess. It is also the admitted fact that the said K. M. Patil died on 25-12-1985. The petitioner claims that he was Power of Attorney holder of said deceased K. M. Patil and on the strength of it, he was collecting the rent. He also claims that before death of K. M. Patil, he was nominated before the Society to hold the property. It has also come out that no legal representatives of K. M. Patil has ever demanded arrears of rent from the respondent. The lower Appellate Authority found that there was no arrears of rent as no demand was made for the same by the competent landlord or agent of the landlord. Moreover, the lower Appellate Court found that the arrears of rent has been deposited by the respondent upto date both on the trial stage and at the appellate stage. The Appellate Court found that the petitioner was authorized by the legal heirs by executing power of attorney for collecting the rent but he has no authorization to file a suit. Moreover, the Power of Attorney was produced subsequent to filing of the suit. Therefore, the lower Appellate Court found that the Power of Attorney cannot be acted upon for the purpose of filing the suit. The Lower Appellate Court also found that the mutation entry made in the Revenue Record in favour of the petitioner will not affect the defence of the tenant. In other words, the entry in the Revenue Record in the name of the petitioner cannot be taken as transfer of title in favour of the petitioner. An attempt was made on behalf of the petitioner to produce document Exh. C and D. Exh. C was the application by the petitioner to the District Survey Officer for informing him about the nomination made by the deceased K. M. Patil as his nominee and requested that his name may be entered in the place of deceaseds name. Exh. D is the certificate issued by the Society accepting his nomination. But sic both these documents are produced in this Court. Admissibility of these documents at this stage is doubtful. Assuming that these documents can be entertained. in this proceedings, it does not have any bearing on the proprietary rights of the suit property. The society can change his nomination only in respect of rights and liabilities of its member. Any change of nomination in the Society will not automatically change the ownership or title over the property. Therefore, I do not find any relevancy in these documents vis-a-vis dispute involved in this case.