The tenant cannot claim adverse possession against the landlord, and the landlord's bonafide requirement for the suit premises prevails over the tenant's occupancy.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Gadkari, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

By consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for Final Hearing.

2. Heard Mr.Bhat, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr.Sathaye, learned Advocate for the Respondent. Perused record.

3. Applicant-Original Defendant (Tenant) has filed the present Revision Application impugning the Judgment and Order dated 4th September 2019 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 194 of 2012 preferred by him thereby dismissing the said Appeal with costs by the learned District Judge-2, Malegaon, District Nashik and confirming the Judgment and Order dated 5th October 2012 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 101 of 1992, whereby the suit for eviction preferred by the Respondents has been decreed and the Applicant has been directed to handover vacant possession of the rented premises within stipulated period.

4. Applicant is the Original Defendant No.1-Tenant in Regular Civil Suit No. 101 of 1992 filed by the Respondents for eviction of the Applicant on the ground of arrears of rent; recovery of rent and bonafide requirement of the landlord. The Original Defendant Nos.2, 3 & 4 are sisters of Applicant and were formal parties to the said suit. The suit premises comprises of 2 rooms situated on Survey Nos.1368 and 1369 owned by Respondents. Record indicates that, during the pendency of the said suit, Original Plaintiff Chintaman Govind Ubale expired and his legal heirs have been brought on record. It is the case of the Respondents that, they are owner of the suit premises and the Applicant herein is residing in the suit premises as a tenant. Since 10th September 1982 the Applicant did not pay rent to the Respondents. The family of Original Plaintiff had grown and for accommodating family members, he was reasonably and bonafide required the suit premises. It is also the case of the Respondents that, the Applicant herein has acquired suitable alternate premises for his family. That the suit premises was and is in dilapidated condition and hence, the Respondents were seeking possession of the suit premises. The Respondents therefore issued notice to the Applicant for claiming arrears of rent from 10th September 1982 to 9th August 1992 and sought possession of the suit premises.

5. As the Applicant did not vacate suit premises, the Original Plaintiff Chintaman Govind Ubale filed present Regular Civil Suit No. 101 of 1992 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division at Manmad.

After receipt of suit summons, Applicant appeared in the said suit and resisted it by filing Written Statement below Exh.9 and additional Written Statement below Exh.35. Applicant denied the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties herein. He pleaded that, he is co-owner of suit premises by succession through Bandu Punja Ubale, by also contending that, Govind Vithu Mahar i.e. father of Original Plaintiff along with Dhondu Punja Ubale, Bapu Punja Ubale and father of Applicant namely Bandu Punja Ubale purchased the plot/land beneath the suit premises by contributing equal share towards its sale price. Applicant further contended that, the Original Plaintiff took disadvantage of illiteracy of the Applicants father and got the land beneath suit premises mutated in his sole name. Applicant also put forth a case of ownership by way of adverse possession, as he was and is continuously and uninterruptedly in use and occupation of the suit premises for more than 12 years and therefore there was no question paying any rent to the Respondents. Record further discloses that, by filing counter claim, the Applicant also sought declaration that he is owner of share in the suit premises, as he is in use, occupation and possession of it for more than 12 years continuously and uninterruptedly. Applicant therefore prayed to decree the counter claim by dismissing the suit filed by the Original Plaintiff.

6. The Trial Court framed issues below Exh.10 and also framed additional issues below Exh.10A. To substantiate his cl