JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J.:---This petitions directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-10-1986 passed in Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1984 by the District Judge, Pune, whereby the judgment and decree for eviction passed in Civil Suit No. 2260 of 1978 dated 27-10-1983 was set aside by the 3rd Additional Small Cause Judge, Pune.

FACTS IN BRIEF

2. The facts in narrow compass are as under :

The petitioner-plaintiff is a Private Limited Company having its registered office at 14, Cannought Road, Pune. The respondent No. 1 (Tenant) is a partnership firm represented by its partners; the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 herein. The parties hereinafter referred to in their original capacities in which they were arrayed in the original suit.

The plaintiff's case:

3. The plaintiff filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 2260 of 1978 in the Court of 3rd Additional Small Cause Court Judge, Pune, for eviction of tenant and possession of the suit premises under the provisions of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act for short).

4. The suit premises consists of 18 rooms located on the first floor in House No. 14/1 situate at Cannought Road, Pune. The suit was filed on the various grounds such as : (i) erection of permanent construction in violation of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act; (ii) breach of section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act (iii) the suit premises were needed by the landlords for their reasonable and bona fide occupation and (iv) that the defendants having committed acts of nuisance and annoyance were liable to be evicted from the suit premises.

5. The plaint alleged that the defendants were monthly tenants of the suit premises on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 375/- including taxes etc. The suit building was purchased for hotel business under the registered sale deed dated 24-9-1974. The tenancy was attorned. The defendants were accepted as tenants of the suit premises.

6. It was further alleged that the defendants have committed unlawful encroachment upon the open space beneath the stair case on the ground floor which was not a part of the rented premises and illegally constructed therein the office cabin for their hotel business. The construction being of permanent nature it ought to have been done with prior permission or consent of the plaintiff-landlords. The defendants-tenants were liable to be evicted from the suit premises for having resorted to the construction without prior permission of the plaintiff-landlord. It was further alleged that the defendants have illegally removed two water storage tanks located on the terrace of the suit building and have replaced the same with their own two new tanks without having obtained prior permission from the plaintiff-landlord and that the defendants have in addition to above, installed the water pump set after erecting the shed therefor that too without prior permission and thereby defendants-tenants have indulged in act of civil trespass and caused nuisance and annoyance and rendered themselves liable for an action of eviction.

The defendant's case:

6-A. The defendants/respondent (Tenants) filed their written statement and denied the claim set up by the plaintiff and pleaded in defence that the contractual rent was inclusive of education cess, taxes, water charges etc. They denied to have committed any act of various breaches alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff. It was denied that defendants have constructed the office cabin under the stair case unauthorisedly. It was also denied that the alleged construction was of permanent nature. It was pleaded that the office cabin was in existence since inception of tenancy and it was let out to the defendants as part of the demised premises. It was further denied that there has been removal of two water tanks from the terrace and submitted that they have simply replaced the same for better enjoyment of the suit premises. The new water pumps were installed as directed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document