Important Point—Appeal Court cannot interfere with findings of Trial Court only because a different view is possible.

1. This matter was admitted on 12.02.1993.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.02.1992 by which the District Court, Jalgaon has allowed Civil Appeal No. 313/1985 filed by the respondent herein. Consequentially, the judgment and decree dated 01.02.1985 passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside and Regular Civil Suit No. 544/1981 filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed.

3. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner plaintiff has strenuously criticized the impugned judgment.

4. His contention is that the petitioner is a landlord and the owner of the suit premises. The respondent herein is the tenant. The petitioner filed a suit for possession over the suit property which is a double storeyed bunglow. The respondent tenant was occupying the entire first floor and half of the ground floor. Another tenant occupied half of the ground floor. The said bunglow was let out to the respondent in 1968-69. The respondent being a BHMS Doctor (Bachelor of Homeopathy Medicine and Surgery) was practicing in the said rented premises. The respondent was about 45 years old. It is stated that the respondent today is about 80 years old.

5. The petitioner had claimed possession of the suit premises and for recovery of Rs.327.50/towards arrears of rent with mesne profits from the date of the filing of the suit till the delivery of the vacant possession. The suit premises is the municipal house situated on City Survey No. 1982/A/51/15, at Zilla Peth, Visanji Nagar, Jalgaon.

6. The doubled stored building consisted of six rooms and two varandah on the ground floor and equal number of rooms and 2 varandah on the first floor. There were two galleries on the first floor (southern portion of the house). On the ground floor on the northern side, two rooms and one varandah was in the possession of a tenant namely Gopalkrushna Kogappa Kadawkar. The rest of the premises on the ground floor and the entire first floor was in the possession of the respondent which is termed as the suit premises.

7. It is submitted that the suit premises were actually given on rent to the respondent for residential purpose @ Rs.300/per month since 1969. As the building was constructed for residential purposes, the building was let out to the two tenants named above for residential purposes only.

8. The petitioner had alleged that the respondent defendant had changed the user of the suit premises by opening a polyclinic. It was also alleged that the petitioner therefore derived the right to have the vacant possession of the suit premises under Section 13(1) (a) and 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act.

9. The petitioner further alleged that the respondent was already running two polyclinics in the Jalgaon town situated at Rath Chowk and another at Shivaji Nagar. The suit premises were never let out to the respondent for business purposes like running a polyclinic.

10. The petitioner further contended that the tenant had his own building at Plot No.47, Jain Nagar, Zilla Peth, Jalgaon which is a large and lavish bunglow having all modern amenities and most convenient for the respondent to suitably occupy the said premises for residence purposes. It was further alleged that the respondent's family has been residing in the said owned bunglow alongwith the respondent for more than six months prior to filing of the suit. It was contended that the respondent was no longer in the need of the suit premises. It was further alleged that the respondent had sublet the suit premises on 20.11.1973 to one Dr. Ulhas Kaduskar. The petitioner came to know of this fact in October 1981. It was further contended in the suit that the respondent has violated/contravened Section 15(1) of the Bombay Rent Act.

11. It was further contended that without his consent, the respondent had caused constructions and alterations of a permanent nature. The varandah on the ground floor towards the western side which was earlier open as per the architectural plan,