JUDGEMENT
S.M.HAJARNAVIS, J. -
(1.)This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the decision given by the District Judge, Poona, dismissing the tenants appeal against the order passed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Poona, directing him to deliver possession of the suit premises to the respondent.
(2.)It is not necessary for the purposes of this petition to enumerate all the facts in details. It is enough to state that the suit premises consisted of two rooms, one of which admeasures 9 X 9 and the other admeasures 4 X 9. The total area under the occupation of the tenant was 126 sq. feet. These premises are situated on the first floor of a house in Budhwar Peth, Poona. It is not disputed that the tenancy commenced in 1952 and that the premises were let out for the purposes of residence. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has constructed a pot mala in 1962 in the premises and he started preparing polythene bags from polythene sheets on the pot mala. It appears that in 1964, the petitioner also started a concern known as "Commercial Corporation" doing commission agency business. Initially when the board of the corporation was put up, the name of his brother-in-law Shri V.K. Vakharia was shown as a proprietor on the board but soon thereafter the name of Shri Vakharia was removed from the board. This Vakharia is the brother-in-law, viz., the brother of the wife of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that there are 8 members in the family of the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that he still continues to live in the suit premises. The respondent terminated the tenancy of the petitioner and asked him to vacate the premises on various grounds, viz., (1) that the petitioner has wrongfully sub-let the suit premises; (2) that he had constructed a permanent structure on the suit premises without the written permission of the landlords. (3) that the petitioner has acquired vacant possession of suitable residence and (4) that the petitioner has effected the change of user viz., that he has been using the suit premises for commercial purpose, while the premises were let out for the residential purpose. The petitioner did not comply and the respondent thereafter filed a suit against the petitioner claiming possession on the four grounds enumerated above.
(3.)The suit was resisted by the petitioner and the trial Court framed the necessary issues and the parties led evidence in their support. The trial Judge, after considering all the evidence, came to the conclusion that the respondent has filed to prove that the petitioner had unlawfully sub-let the suit premises and that he had erected any permanent structure or that he had acquired any alternate suitable accommodation for his residence. He, however, held that the suit premises were initially let out to the petitioner for the purpose of residence and they were being used for commercial purposes and, therefore, held that the respondent was entitled for a decree for possession under section 13(1)(a) read with section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act. He, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs suit on that ground. The petitioner filed an appeal in the District Court which was heard by the District Judge who affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the petitioners appeal. It is against this judgment that the present petition has been filed.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.