JUDGMENT - A.V. SAVANT, J.:---This is a petition by the original-tenant seeking to challenge the order dated 20th July, 1980 passed by the Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the landlords and directing the tenants eviction on two grounds viz. (i) that the premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of 6 months immediately preceding the date of the suit-as mentioned in Clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter, referred to as the said Rent Act) and (ii) that the tenant after coming into operation of the said Rent Act has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence, as mentioned in Clause (1) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Rent Act. The trial Court had dismissed the landlords suit, but on appeal a decree for eviction has been passed, which has been challenged in this petition. A few facts may be stated as under:-

2. The petitioner was employed with the State Government as an Engineer in the Irrigation Department. In 1958 the petitioner was posted at Koyna where he continued till 1962 when he was transferred to Pune. When the petitioner came to Poona, he took the suit premises on rent of Rs. 87/- per month. The premises are a Flat in Narayan Peth, Pune. The petitioner continued in the State Governments service at Pune till 1972 when he was sent on deputation to the Government of India and was posted at Delhi. The petitioner served at Delhi on deputation to the Government of India till 1974 when he was repatriated to the State Government and was again posted at Pune. In October, 1974 he was transferred from Pune to Nagpur and was posted at a nearby project viz. the Pench Project. The petitioner initially went to Nagpur alone and stayed at Service Quarters provided at Pench. However, he secured separate premises on rent viz. Herlekars bungalow, at Dhantoli, Nagpur, and his entire family shifted to the said Dhantoli premises at Nagpur in May, 1975. His family then consisted of his wife, a son, a daughter and his mother. The suit notice was given on 9th October, 1976 terminating the tenancy on the ground that (i) the premises had not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of 6th months immediately preceding the date of the suit and (ii) that the tenant had after the coming into operation of the said Rent Act acquired or allotted suitable residence.

3. In the written statement, the petitioner denied the contentions raised by the respondents landlords. It was denied that the premises has not been used by the petitioner without reasonable cause for the purpose for which the premises were let. According to the petitioner, he had kept his goods and belongings in the suit premises and at times, the members of his family were using the suit premises in Pune. He further contended that in July/August, 1976 he had gone to Pune with his family members and had stayed in the suit premises. According to the petitioner, therefore, he had not ceased to use the premises without reasonable cause. He further contended that there was no case made out even for passing a decree under Clause (1) of sub-section (1) of section 13 and he denied that he had acquired or allotted suitable residence.

4. The oral evidence consisted of the testimony of respondent No. 2 on behalf of the landlords and of the petitioner on his own behalf. The learned trial Judge framed the following two issues and recorded the findings in the negative:

"1. Does the plff. prove that the suit premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purposes for which they were let out for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of suit? No.

2. Does the plffs. prove that the Deft. has shifted with his family and all his belongings out of Poona, as alleged? No.

In coming to this conclusion

Click Here to Read the rest of this document