JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---These writ petitions, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, take exception to the judgment and decree passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Pune, dated 30th October, 1995 in Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1990. The respondents in Writ Petition No. 786 of 1976 and petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1685 of 1997 are the landlords in respect of the premises forming part of house No. 4, Nehru Marg, Ghorpadi, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the "landlords"). The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 786 of 1996 and respondents in Writ Petition No. 1685 of 1997 were inducted in the suit premises as "tenants" by the former landlord (hereinafter referred to as the "tenants"). The landlords purchased the suit property whereafter the tenancy was attorned in their favour. The landlords filed the subject suit in the Court of Small Causes, Pune being Civil Suit No. 1560 of 1986 for possession of the suit premises on the ground of default, conduct of the tenants amounting to nuisance and annoyance and for reasonable and bona fide requirement. The said suit was contested by the tenants. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 8th November, 1989 was pleased to decree the suit in favour of the landlords. The trial Court answered the issue of nuisance and annoyance in favour of the landlords and directed the tenants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the landlords. The trial Court however negatived the other grounds pressed into service on behalf of the landlords. In the circumstances the tenants preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1990 thereby challenging the finding and conclusion in respect of ground of conduct amounting to nuisance and annoyance.

2. Besides the said appeal, on the issue of standard rent, since it was decided against the tenants by the trial Court, the tenants filed revision application in that behalf. However, the Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the tenants being Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1990 and confirmed the view taken by the trial Court on the issue of conduct of the tenants amounting to nuisance and annoyance of the landlords. The Appellate Court has dismissed even the revision application on the issue of standard rent preferred by the tenants.

3. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 786 of 1996 filed by the tenants takes exception to the findings recorded by the two courts below on the issue of conduct of the tenants amounting to nuisance and annoyance to the landlords; whereas the landlords have filed separate writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1685 of 1997 thereby challenging the findings and conclusion reached by the Appellate Court in respect of issue of disclaimer of title as well as the view taken by both the courts in relation of ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. Accordingly, both these writ petitions arise out of one suit between the same parties in respect of the suit for possession filed by the landlords against the tenants, therefore, both these petitions can be disposed of together by this common judgment. It is relevant to note that the ground of default is not advisedly put in issue before this Court.

4. Before I advert to the ground of conduct of the tenants amounting to nuisance and annoyance, I would think it appropriate to first deal with the petition filed by the landlords being Writ Petition No. 1685 of 1997 challenging the findings and conclusion in respect of issue of bona fide requirement and also in relation to the disclaimer of the title.

5. In so far as the question of disclaimer of the title is concerned, the Appellate Court has dealt with the said aspect of the matter and has rightly taken the view by placing reliance on the principle deduced from the decision in (Lena Pareira v. Mery)1, reported in 1992(1) Bom.C.R. 118 , that, since the landlords plaintiffs did not specifically plead the ground of disclaimer of title for eviction, that ground cannot be pressed into service

Click Here to Read the rest of this document