JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---The plaintiff from Regular Civil Suit No. 201/1977 filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandurbar, has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), dismissing his suit for possession of the premises leased to the tenant and the further judgment of the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Dhule, dismissing his appeal filed against the said judgment and decree.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit contending that the suit premises, the ground floor portion of the house City Survey No. 1100/1 being property No. 2417 of Nandurbar was leased to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. The month of tenancy begins on first of each month as per British calendar and ends at the end of each month of the British calendar. The defendant paid rent upto 30-9-1976. However, thereafter the defendant was avoiding to make payment of the rent by giving false excuses and he did not pay the rent till the time of notice. The plaintiff further contended that he was in service. But he wanted to leave his service because the salary was not sufficient for the maintenance of his family and he wanted to start a shop in the suit premises.

3. The plaintiff further contended that he and his family were residing on the first floor of the suit house and, therefore, it would be very convenient for the plaintiff to start a shop on the ground floor. The plaintiff also contended that the back side wall of the premises had become dilapidated and at that place new wall was required to be constructed. The Municipal Council, Nandurbar, had served a notice on the plaintiff for the repairs of the wall but as the defendant and other tenant, Chagan Chaudhary, were not vacating the premises which were in their possession as tenant, the plaintiff could not carry out the repairs and he has demanded the possession of the premises on that count also.

4. The plaintiff has also specifically mentioned in the plaint that the defendant has paid rent to the plaintiff of the period from 1-10-1976 to 31-5-1977 amounting to Rs. 320/- by Money Order sent on the address of his Advocate and, therefore, there was no claim for the arrears of the rent.

5. The defendant filed the written statement and contended that the monthly rent of Rs. 40/- being charged by the plaintiff was not the standard rent of the premises. The rent of the premises was Rs. 25/- when it was taken on rent by the father of the defendant and he, therefore, prayed that the standard rent be fixed at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month. The defendant also denied the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff wanted to leave his service and wanted to start shop in the suit premises. He has contended that just to obtain possession of the suit premises, a false reason is being given by the plaintiff.

6. The defendant further contended that he is running his shop in the suit premises. He has no other premises to start his business. So, if he is evicted from the suit premises, he will suffer great hardship. There are six persons in his family and they are all dependent on him and the business of shop being run by him. The defendant also contended that no portion of the premises has become dilapidated. There was no need to carry out the repairs. The notice issued by the Municipal Council was not based on real condition of the building. The defendant also took the stand that if the plaintiff wanted to reconstruct the wall, the defendant had no objection and that work can be done without asking the defendant to vacate the premises and thus, the defendant prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.

7. The learned Civil Judge recorded evidence of both sides on the issues framed and then came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises bona fide. With respect to the issue of comparative hardship, the learned Civil Judge held that the issue did not survive because the plaintiff had failed to prove that his requiremen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document