The court clarified the application of Section 22 of the Maharashtra Rent Act and emphasized the importance of establishing ownership and landlord status in possession cases.

1. These three writ petitions can be decided by a common judgment since facts in all the writ petitions are exactly identical.

2. By these writ petitions, petitioners/defendants in these suits challenge the judgment and decrees passed by the District Judge, whereby he confirmed the judgment and decrees passed by the Civil Judge.

3. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are as follows –

The respondent/plaintiff is a Public Trust. It runs a school known as Abhyankar Kanya Shala. One Govindrao Korche, Deoji Kathane and Panjabrao Bhande the original defendants were in service as a peon-cum-watchman in the said school. The respondent/plaintiff had constructed five tenements in the premises of the Abhyankar Kanya School and had provided tenements to the defendants as employees of the plaintiff’s trust. In the year 1974 the plaintiff-trust passed a Resolution and decided to deduct occupation charges from the employees who were allotted the accommodation. Govindrao Korche, Deoji Kathane and Panjabrao Bhande – the defendants were allotted quarters as an employees of the plaintiff. A sum of Rs.60/per month was deducted from their salary towards the rent. Until their retirement such amount was being deducted from their salary. Said Govindrao Korce retired in the year 1979 and Deoji Kathane retired in the year 1994 and Panjabrao Bhande retired in the year 1989. Defendants in the suit were time and again asked to vacate the premises but they did not. Defendants in the suits are heirs of said Govindrao, Deoji and Panjabrao and are illegally occupying the premises. The plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the premises but they did not. Hence, a suits came to be instituted.

4. The defendants resisted the suit. Their main contention was that the land belonged to the Government and they at their costs had made construction on the said land. The defendants denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit premises.

5. On these pleadings of parties, the learned judge of the trial court framed issues and learned judge found that Govindrao, Deoji and Panjabrao were the tenants occupying the premises belonging to the plaintiff and plaintiff was entitled to possession. The appellate court concurred with the findings and dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants. The defendants in all these suits therefore have preferred these writ petitions.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

7. Plaintiff/respondent is undisputedly a public trust and runs a school. The defendants/petitioners in the petitions are the heirs of one Govindrao Korche, Panjabrao Bhande and Deoji Kathane. It is the contention of the plaintiff that they being in service of school were given a house for their residence as a tenants. It is also alleged that they were paying rent and even after retirement they did not vacate. They have died and their heirs are not vacating the suit premises. The defendants had raised a plea that the land belonged to the Government and they had made encroachment over it and had constructed their own house. They thus set up title in themselves. In fact, there are concurrent findings that the plaintiff is the landlord and defendants are the tenants. Defendants had failed to prove their title. The learned judge of the trial court has clearly observed that defendants did not produce any evidence whatsoever to prove that the land belonged to the Government and that they have constructed the house. That point does not seem to have been urged before the first appellate court. In the circumstances, that finding that defendants are not the owners has assumed finality.

8. Courts below have considered the documents on record and have held that the plaintiff is the owner of the house. The judgment of the appellate court shows that plaintiff had filed assessment list, property card, site plan and record of rights and deed of grant in order to establish the ownership. The plaintiff had also filed