JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 30-3-1991 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge Pune in Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1987.

2. The original respondent No. 1 is the owner in respect of the premises situated at House No. 76, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Pune, which consists of ground plus two floors. The said house was let out to the petitioner's predecessor Shri Hasaram Shamdasani sometime in 1939. The rent note Exhibit 117 dated 11-6-1939 indicates that the said suit property was let out to the petitioner's father for business cum residence purpose. After the premises were let out, the petitioner's father started using the ground floor for business and upper floor for the residence. It is not in dispute that the original respondent No. 1 purchased the suit property sometime in 1946 and the tenancy in respect of the demised premises was attorned in his favour. The petitioner's father died on 21-7-1978. It is the case of the petitioner that during the life time of his father, business on the ground floor was conducted as partnership firm of which the petitioner was also one of the partner. Further, after the death of his father the petitioner continued to occupy the demised premises and the business of partnership in the name of M/s. A. Hassaram and Company is continued. It is however, on 30-12-1978, the respondent No. 1 issued demand notice purported to be under section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act which was received by the petitioner. On receipt of the said notice the petitioner immediately sent reply on 12-1-1979 denying the material allegations therein. Later on, the original respondent No. 1 instituted suit in the Court of Small Causes Court, Pune bearing Civil Suit No. 925/1980 claiming possession of the suit property initially on the ground of default under section 12; tenant having acquired suitable accommodation under section 13(1)(l); and bona fide and personal requirement for his own business under section 13(1)(g). However, the plaint as filed on 14-4-1980 was sought to be amended by the original respondent No. 1 on 4-4-1985 by introducing one more ground for eviction, namely, that the tenants have constructed a bathroom of a permanent nature on the south east corner of the ground floor of the premises admeasuring 6ft. x 3ft. x 8ft. unauthorizedly, illegally and without the consent of the landlord, thereby contravening section 13(1)(b) of the Act. After this amendment was carried out, the suit proceeded for trial. The original respondent No. 1 entered the witness box on 3-2-1983. Later on, the respondent No. 1 came out with an amendment application on 15-2-1986 asserting that the suit premises were also required for his residence having regard to the growing requirement of his family which already consisted of 3 married couples and one son was likely to be married very soon. The suit was resisted only by the petitioner/defendant No. 2. The petitioner, inter alia, contended that none of the grounds pressed into service were available to the landlord. In so far as the ground of bona fide requirement for his own business was concerned, the petitioner specifically asserted that the same was false claim set up by the plaintiff. In the written statement, the petitioner specifically asserted the fact that the landlord did not disclose that he was owner and in possession of three other properties. Be that as it may, after the abovesaid proposed amendment at the instance of the landlord was allowed, the trial Court proceeded further. The original respondent No. 1 entered the witness box as P.W. 1. In his examination in chief he made no mention about the other properties owned and possessed by him either residential or commercial. This was inspite of the objection taken by the petitioner in the written statement. It is only because of the said written statement, the landlord perhaps was advised to amend the plaint by incorpo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document