A Government servant who is transferred to another location and is compelled to stay there has reasonable cause for not using the premises for the purpose for which they were let under Section 13 (1) (k) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1960.

JUDGMENT - 1. This special civil application is directed against the concurrent findings of the 2nd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Poona, dated April 23, 1969 and of the Assistant Judge, Poona, dated November 19, 1969, that the premises in dispute between the Petitioner-tenant and Respondent-landlord "having not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit", the landlord was entitled to recover possession of the premises under Section 13 (1) (k) of the Bombay Rent Act.

2. The landlord filed a suit against the tenant on the ground that the tenant was a Government servant, who was transferred to Sholapur and was staying in Sholapur with his family for more than a year before the suit and had, therefore, kept the suit premises unused for more than six months before the date of the suit. The landlord terminated the tenancy by a notice dated February 13, 1967, and filed the suit for possession and for recovery of rent from April 1, 1967, as the tenant had paid rent up to the end of March, 1967.

3. The suit was resisted by the tenant. He denied that he locked the premises and did not use them for residential purpose for more than six months as alleged by the landlord. He contended that he was temporarily transferred to Sholapur. He denied that he and his family stayed at Sholapur and that at Sholapur he had secured residential premises. he submitted that during the period of transfer, his family stayed in the suit premises. He also prayed for fixation of standard rent; but he gave up the claim for fixation of standard rent by purshis, Exh. 61.

4. The learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Poona, considered the oral and documentary evidence before him and held against the tenant because -

(1) the tenant had not examined his wife though he stated that she was staying in the suit premises;

(2) letters were written by the tenants wife from Sholapur to the landlords daughter on November 7, 1966, and on other dates;

(3) the tenants wife had sent money-orders from Sholapur to the landlord;

(4) that the tenant had not stated in his reply Exh. 52 to the notice that he and his son stay at Sholapur and that his wife and daughter stay in the suit premises at Poona and that he had stated that the goods were lying in the suit premises;

(5) that although there were tenants in the suit premises, none of them were examined by the tenant to prove his case;

(6) that the tenants witness Bhutadas statement that during the period from August 1966 to January 1967, the tenants wife purchased goods from grocery shop at Poona also could not be believed in the absence of any documentary proof;

(7) that although two counterfoil receipts were signed by the tenants wife, they were not enough to show that the tenants wife was staying all along at Poona, but it only showed that she was casually visiting Poona and such casual visits would not amount to user of the premises for the purpose for which they were let; and

(8) that the fact that the landlord recovered from the tenant electricity charges as per counterfoil receipts Nos. 1919 and 1941 only showed that it was agreed between the parties that the landlord had agreed to charge fixed sum of Rs. 7/- p.m. as electricity charges and it could not be inferred from that that the electricity was consumed by the tenant at Poona.

He did not believe the story of the tenant that he was only temporarily transferred to Sholapur because the tenant did not produce any record to show that he was so temporarily transferred.

5. The finding of the learned Additional Judge was challenged before the Assistant Judge, Poona. the learned Assistant Judge also held that the evidence showed that the tenants son was staying in Sholapur from June 1966 to March, 1967. Even his daughter was in Sholapur till 1967 as proved by a certificate produced from Bhandarkar Primary School at Exh. 42, in which she was shown to have gone to th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document