KALYAN RATANCHAND SHAH Vs. M/S. SHESHMAL DHIRAJI, A FIRM BY ITS PROP.GHEVARCHAND KAPURCHAND JAIN (DECEASED)
LAWS(BOM)-2021-5-28
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on May 11,2021

Kalyan Ratanchand Shah Appellant
VERSUS
M/S. Sheshmal Dhiraji, A Firm By Its Prop.Ghevarchand Kapurchand Jain (Deceased) Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

M/S. MUSAJI MOHAMADALI MASTER AND SONS AND ANR. V/S. MR. GULAMALI DADABHAI AMRELIWALA [REFERRED TO]
SMT. JAYASHREE VIJAYSINGH KHALATE V/S. HUSENIBHAI ABDUL KADAR KAYAMKHANI [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM KESHAV DAVARE AND ORS. V/S. BABULAL MOTILAL OSWAL AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
RAHABHAR PRODUCTIONS PVT LIMITED VS. RAJENDRA K TANDON [REFERRED TO]
GAYA PRASAD VS. PRADEEP SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]
MOHD AYUB VS. MUKESH CHAND [REFERRED TO]
ANIL BAJAJ VS. VINOD AHUJA [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR RASTOGI VS. SUMITRA DEVI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

C.V.BHADANG, J. - (1.)This is a case where the eviction of the Respondents from the suit premises was sought by filing a suit in the year 1989 Sneha Chavan page 1 of 25 wp 302-97-1.doc inter alia on the ground that Ashwin, the son of Plaintiff No.1, who was at the relevant time aspiring for a degree of mechanical engineering and was admittedly engaged in the business of auto spare parts required the suit shop premises. It is an irony of sorts that the Petitioners are yet to succeed in obtaining the possession, although now the son of Ashwin is a mechanical engineer and is said to have joined the business. In this case, as there are several subsequent events on either side, an attempt was made to see whether the parties can amicably settle the dispute. However, inspite of efforts, the parties could not reach a settlement.
(2.)By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging, concurrent orders passed by the courts below, refusing to grant a decree of eviction and possession of the suit premises. The eviction was sought on the ground of reasonable and bonafide personal occupation, change of user and the Respondents/tenants having secured an alternate accommodation, under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (Old Act). This petition arises out of a suit of the year 1989.
(3.)Late Kalyan Shah and Laxmichand Shah (original plaintiffs) filed Civil Suit No. 1660 of 1989 against M/s. Sheshmal Dhiraji, a partnership firm, through Ghevarchand Jain and others (original defendants) before the Small Causes Court at Pune. The Plaintiffs sought eviction and possession of the suit premises which comprise of a shop and a room on the rear side, bearing House No. 533 at Centre street, Cantonment area, Pune. The suit premises are situated on the ground floor of a three storied building. It may be mentioned that plaintiff No.1 was residing on the second floor while the plaintiff no.2 was residing on the first floor of the said building. The case made out is that the suit premises, were let out to Late Kapurchand Jain, father of Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, somewhere in the year 1969 for business and residential purpose, by the father of the plaintiffs, late Ratanchand Shah. The defendants are running a jewellery shop in the suit premises under the name and style as 'Sheshmal Dhiraji and Sons'. Tenancy month is from 10 th of each English calendar month to 9th of the succeeding month.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.