SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Bom) 1876

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, J.
Shri. Prafulkumar Damaji Gala - Petitioner
Versus
Shri. Narayan Govind Gavate - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.6464 OF 1999
Decided On : 28-11-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Prathamesh Kamat a/w Mr. T.N. Tripathi i/by T.N. Tripathi & Co., Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Mandar Limaye a/w Mr. Yatin Malvankar, Advocate.

Headnote:

eviction - tenant's petition - Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act - [13(1)(a)] - The appellate Court partly decreed the suit, directing the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the backside suit residential premises to the respondent. The petitioner appealed the judgment.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a landlord, filed a suit against the petitioner, a tenant, seeking eviction and possession of the backside suit residential premises. The petitioner had made structural alterations to the premises, changing the nature and character of the suit premises from three rooms to two rooms, without the prior written consent of the landlord. The respondent also alleged that the petitioner had changed the user of the premises from residential to commercial, and that the petitioner was not residing in the residential portion of the suit premises. The trial judge dismissed the suit, but the appellate Court reversed the findings and partly decreed the suit, directing the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the backside suit residential premises to the respondent.

Finding of the Court:

The appellate Court found that the petitioner had made structural alterations to the suit premises, changing the nature and character of the premises without the prior written consent of the landlord. The Court also found that the petitioner had changed the user of the premises from residential to commercial, and was not residing in the residential portion of the suit premises. Based on these findings, the Court partly decreed the suit, directing the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the backside suit residential premises to the respondent.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner had made structural alterations to the suit premises without the prior written consent of the landlord, and whether the petitioner had changed the user of the premises from residential to commercial.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner had made structural alterations to the suit premises, changing the nature and character of the premises without the prior written consent of the landlord. The Court also found that the petitioner had changed the user of the premises from residential to commercial, and was not residing in the residential portion of the suit premises. Based on these findings, the Court partly decreed the suit, directing the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the backside suit residential premises to the respondent.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to hand over the suit premises to the respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a tenant's petition assailing the judgment and order dated 11th August, 1999 of the learned Additional District Judge, Thane whereby the civil appeal of the respondent-landlord against the judgment and order dated 15th October 1996 in Regular Civil Suit No.218 of 1993 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Thane, dismissing the respondents' suit stands set aside. By the impugned judgment, the respondents' eviction suit is partly decreed interalia directing to the petitioner to deliver to the respondent vacant possession of the “back side suit residential premises”.

2. In nutshell the facts are :-

The respondent Narayan Govind Gavate (since deceased) was the owner of the chawl situated at Survey No.365/52 known as Gavate Chawl situated at Vithawa Taluka and District Thane, which is within the limits of Thane Municipal Corporation. In this chawl, a tenement consisting of three rooms was let out to the petitioner in the year 1976 (for short “the suit premises”). The total area of these three rooms/suit premises was 300 sq.ft. The suit premises were let out to the petitioner for the purpose of business and residence. In the front room, the petitioner was undertaking business of a grocery shop, while in the rear two rooms as averred in the plaint, the petitioner was residing with his family members. Respondents 1(a) to 1(d) are the legal heirs and representatives of Narayan. For convenience the legal heirs who represent the landlord are referred as “the respondent”.

3. There is something which is very peculiar about this tenancy, which the respondent-landlord has subsequently ratified. The respondent has averred in the plaint that at the inception of the tenancy, the petitioner was minor and his father had taken the suit premises on rent in the name of his minor son. Since inception of the tenancy, the suit premises were used for conducting grocery shop in the front room and the rear two rooms were used for residence. The father of the petitioner was managing the said business. However, on the petitioner becoming a major, he is accepted as a tenant by the respondent-landlord.

4. The rent of the suit premises was Rs.100/per month excluding the taxes and permitted increases. Initially, the suit premises were in the Grampanchayat area. In 1982, the area of Vithawa came to be merged in the area of the newly formed Thane Municipal Corporation. Thereafter, the petitioner willingly started paying rent at the rate of Rs.200/per month.

5. The case of the respondent in the plaint is that the petitioner was not ready and willing to pay monthly contractual rent regularly. The respondent therefore had issued a notice dated 14.10.1985 to the petitioner terminating his tenancy on various grounds. The petitioner replied to the said notice taking false pleas. However, after the receipt of the said notice, the petitioner paid the amount of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.200/per month. The respondent averred in the plaint that the petitioner had obtained an alternate residential accommodation in Gunsagar Cooperative Housing Society at Kalwa, which was a suitable and convenient accommodation for the petitioner and his family members. This alternate accommodation was comprising of self-contained two rooms and a kitchen being a flat of an area of 575 sq.ft. The petitioner had shifted to this new premises with his family members and was residing therein. Thus, the petitioner was not in a need of the suit premises.

6. The respondent's case in the plaint was also on the petitioner having changed the user of the suit premises, for which they were let out to him. After shifting to the new alternate premises at Kalwa, the petitioner had started using the entire suit premises for commercial purpose that is for the shop, without the permission and the consent of the respondent. This was objected on several occasions by the respondent. The petitioner had also demolished the wall dividing the two residential rooms and had converted t
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top