JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J.:---Rule returnable forthwith.

Respondents waives service. By consent of parties heard finally.

2.This petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-04-2000 delivered in Appeal No. 42 of 1998 by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Thane, whereby the judgment and decree for possession passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 638 of 1994 with order passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 63 of 1995, dated 12th January, 1998 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwandi, was confirmed.

FACTS IN BRIEF

Facts in narrow compass are as under :---

3.The petitioner is a Dentist by profession. He is a monthly tenant occupying premises consisting of four rooms located on the first floor of the Municipal House No. 240, situated at Kap Kaneni, Bhiwandi. The respondents are the owners and landlords of the suit premises, which were let out to the petitioner under lease agreement dated 31st October, 1961.

4.The respondents herein instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 638 of 1994 against the petitioner (tenant) claiming to be entitled to recover possession of the suit premises on the various grounds, inter alia contending that the petitioner-tenant has (i) without the Landlord's written consent erected therein permanent structure: (ii) unlawfully given on licence part of his interest therein (iii) the suit premises were needed reasonably and bona fide by the plaintiffs for their own occupation; and (iv) the defendant has acquired suitable alternate accommodation for his residence. Thus various sub-clauses of section 13(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("Act" for short) were invoked by the plaintiffs against the petitioner/defendant (tenant) to evict him from the suit premises.

5.On being summoned the defendant/petitioner (tenant) appeared. He filed his detailed written statement. He denied all the allegations made against him in the plaint. The issues, based on rival pleadings, were framed. The parties to the suit were put to trial. They were permitted to lead documentary as well as oral evidence. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwandi, heard both the parties and after appreciating the evidence held that the plaintiffs had proved their case on all counts referred to hereinabove except on the ground that the premises were needed for bona fide occupation of the plaintiffs. The trial Court thus directed eviction of the defendant/tenant and passed decree for possession of the suit premises.

6.Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petitioner defendant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the lower Appellate Court. He preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1998. The said appeal was heard by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Thane, who after hearing the parties to the appeal, was not only pleased to confirm the said judgment and decree of the trial Court but was further pleased to hold that the plaintiffs had also proved their reasonable and bona fide need for the suit premises. In the result the appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant was dismissed. The decree of the trial Court was confirmed.

7.The aforesaid judgment and decree is subject matter of challenge in present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

GROUNDS OF ATTACK

8.The following grounds were pressed into service by the defendant-petitioner to attack the impugned judgment and decree for possession. They are summarised as under :-

(a) That the courts below committed serious error of law by proceeding on assumption that alleged alterations/constructions set out in the plaint amounted to carrying out construction of permanent nature in breach of section 13(1)(b) of the Act.

(b) That the courts below were wrong in holding that the premises were unlawfully sublet warranting eviction of the petitioner (tenant) under section 13(1)(e) of the Act.

(c) That the lower Appellate Court has committed an error in holding that the plaintiffs-landlords were in need of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document