JUDGMENT - Dr. CHANDRACHUD D.Y., J.:---Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. In a suit instituted in 1984, a decree for eviction was passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Solapur on 30th April, 1997 under section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The ground for eviction was that the tenant had committed an act contrary to the provisions of section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, by not utilising the premises for the purpose for which they have been let out. The judgment and order of the learned trial Judge has been affirmed by the Additional District Judge at Solapur on 2nd January, 2003.

3. The admitted fact is that under a rent note executed on 20th July, 1982, the premises were let out for being used for residential purposes. The suit was instituted in 1984 and in paragraph 6 of the plaint, the landlord pleaded that approximately one year prior thereto, the tenant had commenced holding classes of a Montessori School described as a "Balwadi" in which 75 children had been admitted. According to him, the school had been commenced by the tenant and his wife and was being conducted by a body known as the "Shishu Sanskar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal" at Solapur. In this manner, it was pleaded that the premises which had been taken on rent for the purposes of residence were being used for another purpose without the permission of the landlord. In reply to the averment contained in the plaint, the tenant admitted that the premises had been taken on rent for the purpose of residence, but contended that they were being utilised for that purpose. The tenant admitted that he was conducting a Balwadi, but then stated that the institute was not for profiteering as alleged but for imparting education to students.

3-A. In support of this ground for eviction, the respondent stepped into the witness box and stated that the school was being conducted in the premises since June 1983. He stated that the school was being conducted from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and that there are three classes. The landlord deposed that when the suit was instituted, 75 students were enrolled in the school which number had increased in September 1993 when the deposition was recorded to 180 students. Then it was stated that the wife of the tenant and three teachers look after the work of the school. The school was stated to be in receipt of a yearly grant of Rs. 23,000/- from the Government. The landlord stated, both in his Examination-in-Chief as well as in the cross-examination that the tenant was also residing in the suit premises.

4. In the course of his examination, the tenant admitted that the school was in fact, being conducted in the premises and that apart from his wife, two other teachers had been engaged. He stated that there were 40 children who had been enrolled in the school and denied the suggestion that a total 120 students, divided into two classes of 60 students each, had been enrolled. The tenant stated that no register of students would had been enrolled had been maintained though an attendance register was being maintained. The tenant then admitted that the school was in receipt of aid to the extent of Rs. 23,124/- from the Central Government from the year 1986-87 and that the grant has been received thereafter for every year. The tenant admitted that the written permission of the landlord had not been obtained before conducting the school. The tenant stated that for the purpose of the students, four rooms in the premises as well as the verandah had been utilised. The tenant was specifically asked as to why, despite a specific direction of the Court at Exh. 29, he had failed to produce the records relating to the school, including the school register. To this, the answer was that he did not wish to disclose as to why he had not produced the record despite a direction of the Court.

5. The learned tri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document