The main legal point established is that the presence of family members in a property does not necessarily constitute unlawful sub-letting under the Bombay Rent Act.

JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Both these writ petitions are directed against the judgment of the Addl. District Judge, Thane dated 2-9-1993 in Civ. Appeal No. 295 of 1989.

2. Both these writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment as they relate to the same suit property between the same parties arising from the suit instituted by the respondent No. 1.

3. Briefly stated, the respondent No. 1 herein filed suit against (1) Vasant Mahadev Pandit petitioner No. 1 in W.P. No. 4171 of 1993; (2) Laxman Mahadev Pandit brother of Vasant Pandit and husband of Sunanda Pandit petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 4171 of 1993; and (3) V.R. Salvi father of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4195 of 1993. The said suit was filed before the Civil Judge, S.D., Pune being R.C. Suit No. 759 of 1977 for possession of the suit property bearing Tika No. 3 City Survey No. 243, Mahagiri, Thane. The gravemen of the ground in the said suit was that the suit premises were let out to Vasant Pandit defendant No. 1 for residence, however, he left the suit premises and inducted his brother Laxman original defendant No. 2 and Mr. V.R. Salvi defendant No. 3 the father in law of his another brother Bhalchandra. In other words, the suit for possession was instituted by respondent No. 1 on the ground that the original tenant Vasant unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to defendants 2 and 3. Besides the ground of subletting, in para 2 of the plaint, respondent No. 1 further asserts that Vasant Pandit original defendant No. 1 also indulged in profiteering by charging monthly rent of Rs. 50/- from defendants 2 and 3 without consent and/or permission of respondent No. 1 herein. Although other ground is mentioned in the plaint, however, parties have confined the matter only to the ground of sub-letting and profiteering.

4. This suit was resisted by defendants 1 and 3 by filing written statement. In the written statement, besides denying the allegations in the plaint, specific case is made out that the suit premises were originally let out to Mahadev Ramchandra Pandit viz. father of original defendants 1 and 2 as tenant thereof on monthly rent and that the said Mahadev Pandit died on or about 29-6-1947 leaving behind his four sons Bhalchandra, Vasant, Laxman, Chandrakant and his widow Yashodabai. The defendants further claim that originally the rent in respect of the suit premises consisting of three rooms was Rs. 21/- per month, but the same was increased to Rs. 30/- after the defendant inducted his brother Laxman defendant No. 2 and V.R. Salvi defendant No. 3 father-in-law of his brother Bhalchandra. In other words, it was pleaded on behalf of the defendants that defendant 2 and 3 were inducted with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. In para 7 of the written statement it is further stated that defendant No. 1 Vasant was allotted quarters by the company and therefore left the suit premises and occupied the said quarters; and after defendant No. 1 started living separately, his brothers occupied the suit premises along with mother Yashodabai. It was contended that suit premises were let out for the residence of the family and that both defendants 2 and 3 were staying in the suit premises as family members. The defendants categorically denied the allegation of sub-letting and profiteering. According to the defendants, defendant No. 2 was staying in the suit premises being brother of defendant No. 1 and son of original tenant Mahadev, whereas defendant No. 3 being father-in-law of another brother Bhalchandra was staying in the suit premises on account of compelling circumstances since he was forced to vacate the premises at Thane due to threat of demolition by municipal council. In other words, it was contended that both the defendants 2 and 3 were staying in the suit premises along with mother Yashodabai as family members.

5. With these rival pleadings the parties went to the trial. The trial Court by judgment dated 30-6-1989 was pleased to di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document