JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This Writ Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the Judgment of the Joint District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 463 of 1985.

2. The petitioners are the trustees for a private trust of Anandibai Raghunath Karkare others. The suit property bearing No. CTS No. 917/19-B situated at Shivaji Nagar, Pune was purchased by Shri D.G. Shembekar and Mrs. G. Shembekar, in their capacities as trustees, sometime in the year 1951 by a registered sale deed. A portion of the said house consisting of 5 rooms was in occupation of the respondent company as a monthly tenant on payment of Rs. 94.50 as rent in addition to permitted increases. It is stated that the suit premises were let out to the respondent for office use only.

3. That the said Shri D.G. Shembekar instituted suit in the Court of Additional Small Causes, Pune being C.S. No. 2848 of 1981 against the respondent. The suit was filed for possession of the suit premises on various grounds, inter alia, arrears, bona fide, requirements, change of user and non-user. For the present, we are concerned only with the ground of change of user and non-user, as the petitioners have confined arguments only with regard to those two grounds.

4. The Trial Court on the basis of rival pleadings and evidences, both documentary and oral, adduced by parties, was pleased to dismiss the suit on all the grounds. The Trial Court held that the petitioners had failed to make out any ground for evicting the respondent.

5. Against the said decision, the matter went up in appeal before the District Judge, Pune being Civil Appeal No. 263 of 1985. Even the Appellate Court by the impugned order dated 31-3-1987 has confirmed the said findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, while challenging the aforesaid orders, has mainly contended that the view taken by both the courts below in respect of ground of non-user of the suit premises for a period preceding 6 months before the date of institution of the suit and that of change of user of the suit premises, is totally wrong and error apparent on the face of the record. According to the petitioners, it would be manifest injustice if the said findings, though concurrently recorded by the courts below, are not upset in so far as the grounds of change of user and non-user of the suit premises are concerned. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on common material to press the aforesaid grounds, as according to him, if it is held that the respondent had changed the user of the premises it would necessarily follow that the respondent was not using the suit premises for the purposes of section 13(1)(k) of the Act of Bombay Rent Act. In as much as the user cannot be said to be for the purpose for which the suit premises were let and thus, it would amount to premises being not used within the purport of section 13(1)(k) of the Act. To support this proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (1979 Maharashtra Law Journal 315)1. The petitioner have mainly relied on the pleadings of the parties as well as oral and documentary evidence. Strong reliance has been placed on the oral evidence of the plaintiff - P.W. 1, the Rent Controller Shri Phansalkar P.W. 2 as well as on the admissions made by the respondent/defendant in his evidence of P.W. 1. In addition to this, what has been emphasised is that during the pendency of the appeal before the District Court, the petitioners had moved an application for appointment of Court Commissioner to report the fact situation with regard to the suit premises. It is matter of record that the said application was resisted by the respondent, nevertheless the Appellate Court by order dated 10-7-1985 appointed the Court Commissioner to submit the report. One Shri G.V. Datar, Advocate was appointed as the Court Commissioner, who

Click Here to Read the rest of this document