JUDGMENT - PURANIK S.W., J.:- These two Writ Petitions arise under the Bombay Rent. Note and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “the Bombay Rent Act”).

2. The Writ Petition No. 228 of 1980 is filed by the Defendant-Tenant against the decree for eviction passed by the Joint Judge, Pune, on the ground that she has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining occupiers. The Writ Petition No. 1166 of 1980 is filed by the plaintiffs-Landlords which is in the nature of cross petition praying for a decree on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and also on the ground hat the tenant has erected a permanent structure without the landlord's written consent. For the sake of convenience the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 228 of 1980 is referred to as “the Tenant” while he Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1166 of 1980 are referred to as “the Landlords”.

3. The Landlords are five brothers and they are owners of a bungalow at 4, Napier Road, at Pune. The tenant is in occupation of the suit premises comprising of southern side portion of the ground floor of the said bungalow and also a toilet and garage on the adjoining open site. Originally the suit premises were let out to the tenants' deceased father in 1949 and since after his death the tenant is occupying the suit premises. The landlords after terminating the tenancy of the tenant by a suit notice dated 6th February 1974 filed suit No. 2034 of 1974 in the Court of the Small Causes, Pune, for eviction of the tenant mainly on three grounds: that the Landlords bona fide and reasonably require the premises for their personal use and occupation, that the Tenant has trespassed and encroached upon the southern side open portion of the bungalow by putting up a barbed wire fencing so as to deprive the other occupiers of the bungalow of their right to enjoy the said open portion and that the tenant has locked the gate from the southern side of the bungalow, as a result of which the other occupiers of the bungalow cannot use the said southern side gate and these acts on the part of the tenant amount to nuisance and annoyance within the meaning of section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, and lastly, the Tenant has constructed a permanent structure i.e. a water tank without the written consent of the Landlords.

4. The Small Cause Court negatived the ground of personal bona fide requirement but passed the decree for possession on the remaining two grounds i.e. causing nuisance and annoyance and erection of permanent structure. The tenant preferred Appeal No. 280 of 1978 to the District Court, Pune. The Landlords preferred cross objections against the rejection of their claim on the ground of personal requirement. The district Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court as far as the ground of personal requirement was concerned. The District Court reversed the findings of the Small Cause Court as far as the ground of erection of the permanent structure was concerned but confirmed the decree for possession on the ground of causing annoyance and nuisance.

5. As far as ground of erection of permanent structure is concerned, the District Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court that the water tank erected by the tenant is a permanent structure within the meaning of section 13(1)(b) but the District Court relying upon a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in (Shantinath Ghongade v. Rajmal Gugale)1, reported in 1979 Maharashtra L.J. 229 held that as the cause of action accrued to Landlord's predecessor-in-title before the property was sold, the said cause of action was not available to the present landlords. The said judgment is overruled by the Division Bench in (Radhabhai Shela v. Trimbak Shirole)2, reported in 1981 Maharashtra L.J. 967. The Division Bench inter alia held that the right of recovery of possession under sub-section (a) and (b) of section 13(1) of the Bombay Rent Act can be exercised by the successor-in-titl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document