The court upheld eviction on multiple grounds under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, emphasizing the landlord's superior rights and the tenant's unauthorized alterations and nuisance.

JUDGMENT :

WRIT PETITION NO.4285 OF 2012 “This writ petition is pending for “admission”, for last 14 years in this Court.”

1. Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Original Defendant No.1, challenging the concurrent findings of eviction recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

FACTS

2. Respondent No.1 herein is the Original Plaintiff, who had filed a suit for eviction under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act against the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 and 3, on the grounds of “non-user”, “bona-fide requirement”, “nuisance”, “sub-letting” and “unauthorized additions and alterations” in the premises.

3. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their nomenclature before the trial Court.

4. After filing of the suit, Defendant No.1 (the Petitioner herein) filed his written statement on 5 September 2006 and additional written statement on 12 April 2007. Defendant No.2 filed his separate written statement on 23 September 2002, and additional written statement on 18 January 2005.

5. After the written statements were filed by the Defendants, Issues were framed by the Trial Court. The Plaintiff examined two witnesses. PW-1, one Mr.Somnath Shetty, who was the Director of the Plaintiff Company was examined to prove all grounds of eviction. So also PW-2, one Maruti Bhimaji Sabale, being the Sectional Engineer of Pune Cantonment Board was examined to prove the ground of “unauthorized additions and alterations”. Both the witnesses of the Plaintiff were cross- examined by the advocate appearing for the Defendants. The Defendants examined two witnesses. Defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1 and one Labib Ashfaq Shaikh was examined as DW - 2. Both the witnesses of the Defendants were cross- examined by the Plaintiffs’ advocate. After the evidence of both the parties was completed, the matter was argued by the counsel appearing for both the sides.

6. By judgment and order dated 19 December 2007, the Trial Court decreed the suit on all five grounds viz. “bona-fide requirement” “non-user”, “nuisance”, “sub-letting” and “unauthorized additions and alterations”.

7. Being dis-satisfied with the passing of the judgment and decree by the Trial Court, only Original Defendant No.1 filed Regular Civil Appeal No.178 of 2008, before the District Judge at Pune. Rest of the Defendants did not file any Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 19 December 2007 passed by the Trial Court. By its judgment and decree dated 30 August 2011, the District Judge, Pune dismissed the Appeal filed by the Original Defendant No.1, thereby confirming four grounds of eviction viz. “bona-fide requirement”, “nuisance”, “sub-letting” and “unauthorized additions and alterations”.

8. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of eviction on four grounds viz. “bona-fide requirement”, “nuisance”, “sub-letting” and “unauthorized additions and alterations”, the present Writ Petition is filed by the Original Defendant No.1. The present Writ Petition is pending for admission from the year 2012. Submissions of the Parties :

9. Dr.Warunjikar, counsel appearing for the Petitioner- Original Defenant No.1, made his submissions on behalf of the Petitioner / Original Defendant No.1.

(i). He submitted that as regards the grounds of “unauthorized additions and alterations”, two Second Appeals are pending before this Court, which arise out of the proceedings of issuance of notices by Pune Cantonment Board. Dr.Warunjikar submits that the Original Defendant No.1 were served with two separate notices issued by the Pune Cantonment Board, alleging therein that there were unauthorised additions and alterations in the suit premises without the permission of the Pune Cantonment Board. The recipient of the notices, Defendant No.1 challenged the notices by way of filing two suits before the Civil Judge (Junior Division). The Civil Judge (Junior Division) allowed both the suits of the Petitioners. However the first appellate Court reversed the findings,