The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a suit is determined by the averments in the plaint, not the defense in the written statement.

1. The petitioner tenant who suffers a decree of eviction in a civil suit as filed by the respondent landlord and as confirmed in an appeal by the appellate Court is before the Court in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner is the tenant (Original defendant) and respondent (Original Plaintiff) in Regular Civil Suit No.325 of 1979 filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Sangli. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner tenants Smt. Laxmibai Ganpati Bhingare expired and her legal heirs who were brought on record pursue this petition. For convenience, the parties are referred as they originally stand when the petition came to be filed.

3. In nutshell, the facts are :

The respondent instituted the civil suit in question for recovery of possession of the suit property which is a open plot admeasuring 30 sq.ft x 20 sq.ft out of city survey No.1009 of 2004 situated in Gaonbhag locality at Sangli, as also for possession of the encroached open land admeasuring 200 sq.ft towards northern side of the let out premises.

4. One Ganesh Yashwant Bhide was the original owner of the land under the said city survey numbers who had sold the said land to the respondent under a registered Sale deed dated 23.4.1979. Except for the actual area in possession of the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was let out an open plot. The case of the respondent in the plaint was of an open plot admeasuring 30 sq.ft x 20 sq.ft being let out to the petitioner and the petitioner encroaching upon the open plot to an extent of 200 sq.ft in west-north corner of the city survey number. As averred in the plaint by the respondent, the petitioner had constructed certain temporary structures such as cattle shed, place for stocking cattle fodder etc in this encroached portion. The respondent's case was that by committing such encroachment, the petitioner had made herself liable for eviction under section 13 (1) (c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1974 (for short 'Bombay Rent Act'). The second ground as urged by the respondent was that the suit premises were let out, only for the purpose of residence and the defendant had started using the premises for the purpose of milk and tailoring business. Such change of user was contrary to the provisions of clause (a) of section 13 (1) of the Bombay Rent Act. The third ground was that the respondent reasonably and bonafide required the open plot for erection of a new building and hence he was entitled for a decree of possession under clause (i) of section 13 (1) of the Bombay Rent Act.

5. The petitioner resisted the suit by filing written statement as also an additional written statement. It was the petitioner's case that the original landlord (Ganesh Yashwant Bhide) had let out open plot admeasuring 1538 sq.feet to her deceased father and thus the respondent's case of having let out the plot admeasuring 30 sq.ft.x 20 sq.ft, as also allegation of the petitioner having committed an encroachment was false. This contention was supported by the petitioner relying upon her reply to the respondent's notice dated 8.2.1979. As regards the respondent's contention on change of user, the same was denied inter alia stating that the suit premises were used for the said purposes, since the beginning, and as such there was no change of user. As regards the contention that the respondent on bonafide requirement that he intended to construct a building, the same was denied by the petitioner to be false.

6. The learned trial Judge framed seven issues. The relevant issues or the controversy in the present petition are Issue nos.1, 5 and 6 which are answered in the affirmative which read thus :