JUDGMENT - V.V. KAMAT, J.:---In this petition by the plaintiffs landlords in their suit for eviction against the original tenant Vithoba Thorat on several grounds, submissions as regards the only ground of eviction, being one under section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents Act, have been made before me by learned Counsel appearing for them. On this position, de hors the other grounds of eviction, I will only consider the said ground of eviction on the basis of the tenant acquiring suitable accommodation with reference to the findings recorded by the fact finding Courts below.

2. The suit premises is one room tenanted to Vithoba Thorat, the predecessor in title of the present respondent, admeasuring 10 ft. x 12 ft. with monthly rent of Rs. 10/- exclusive of permitted increase and other cess and taxes, situate on the northern side of a building, being House No. 92/2 on City Survey No. 47, Shukrawar Peth, Pune.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs landlords that after the suit premises were taken on rent, two properties were purchased by the tenant Vithoba Thorat in Shukrawar Peth. It is contended that the tenant was not at all requiring the suit premises. Vithoba Thorat was doing business on a large scale. It is contended that the new premises were let out for residence partly and the remaining protion was given to the tenants who were already in occupation thereof before the construction. The plaintiff claimed possession of the suit premises under the provisions of section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of or had been alloted a suitable residence.

4. The two Courts have recorded concurrent finding that the suit premises has been used for business and as such is business premises. A positive finding is recorded by the Trial Court in para 10 of its judgment that the suit premises was not for residence, but for office. Similarly, the Appellate Court has endorsed the said finding by observing that the tenant and therefter his successor-in-title the present respondents have been using the premises for the purpose of placing some of their subordinates or Clerks entrusted with the duty of writing or maintaining the accounts and the like. It is observed by both the Courts in such manner that the use of the suit premises is in connection with the business of brokerage and for such business the room is used for writing accounts by the employes of the said business concern.

5. The Trial Court with reference to issue No. 6 which is the relevant issue for the purpose has recorded a positive finding in favour of the plaintiffs of the tenant having acquired suitable premises elsewhere for residence and for business and thereby has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to get possession on the said ground of eviction under section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents Act.

6. Proceeding on the basis that the premises is a business premises, the Appellate Court relying upon the provisions of section 25 of the Bombay Rents Act has allowed the appeal on the reasoning that the premises in possession of the tenant being residential premises granting a decree with regard to business premises would be in violation of section 25 of the Bombay Rents Act.

7. The petitioners landlords have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging this reversal of the decree by the Appellate Court.

8. Shri Bhadti, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition, has submitted that the two Courts have recorded the finding that the tenants have acquired suitable accommodation, though it is residential premises. The learned Counsel submitted that there cannot any bar of section 25 of the Bombay Rents Act in view of the fact that in regard to the premises acquired by the respondent tenants there is no tenancy in regard thereto. The learned Counsel submitted that the respondents are the owners of the premises acquired and, therefore, the bar contemplated by the provisio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document