{1}

wp2709-16

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.2709 OF 2016

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12292 OF 2021

Sundarlal Ratilal Wani

PETITIONERS

Died (Through LRS)

1.

Ramabai Sundarlal Wani

Age – 68 years, Occ – Household

R/o Methaji Plots

Opposite Vidya Gauri Bungalow

Bhusawal, District – Jalgaon

2.

Bhaskar Sundarlal Wani

Age – 52 years, Occ – Business / Service

R/o As above

VERSUS

Jenabai Rasulbhai Charawala

RESPONDENTS

Died (Through LRs)

1.

Sabir Hussain Rasulbhai Charawala

Age – 45 years, Occ – Business

R/o 863 Chowk Bazar, Bhusawal

District – Jalgaon

2.

Mustak Hussain Rasulbhai Charawala

Age – 44 years, Occ – Business

R/o As above

3.

Subhash Sundarlal Wani

Age – 47 years, Occ – Business

R/o Methaji Plots

Opposite Vidya Gauri Bungalow

Bhusawal, District – Jalgaon

4.

Ramesh Sundarlal Yawalkar (Wani)

Age -44 years, Occ – Business

R/o C/o Mr. Jade,

Shridhar Housing Society,

{2}

wp2709-16

Wadi, Nagpur

5.

Suresh Sundarlal Wani

Age – 38 years, Occ – Service

R/o Trimbak Nagar

Jalgaon

.......

Mr. S. S. Bora, Advocate for the petitioners

Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Shritej

Survey for respondents No. 1 and 2

.......

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

RESERVED ON

: 30

^th NOVEMBER, 2021

PRONOUNCED ON : 21

^st DECEMBER, 2021

JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

the consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2.

Short point involved in the writ petition is whether the

tenancy is a monthly tenancy or an yearly tenancy. For the sake

of convenience, the parties are referred to as “tenant/s” and

“Landlady / Landlords”.

3.

The petitioners are the tenants of shop premises situated

at Municipal House No. 847, City Survey No. 1421 at Bhusawal.

Initially, the respondent Jenabai was the Landlady and after her

death, her legal heirs are now owners and landlords of the suit

property.

{3}

wp2709-16

4.

The landlady had issued a legal notice dated 10^th February,

1978 to the tenant claiming that the tenancy was monthly

tenancy and monthly rent was payable @ Rs.52.59 and the

tenancy month commenced from first day of each English

month. The tenant was in arrears of the rent from 1^st February,

1977 and has become a defaulter. The Shop premises was

needed for her personal bona fide use. Therefore, by the notice,

the landlady terminated the tenancy rights of the tenant by the

end of 31^st March, 1978. The tenant was, therefore, called upon

to vacate the shop premises by the end of 31^st March, 1978 and

was directed to pay arrears of rent.

5.

The tenant replied said notice and refuted the claim of the

landlady. The tenant contended that rent was payable yearly @

Rs.631.08. The said rent amount was sent to the landlady and

further an amount of Rs.105.58 was being sent as two months’

rent up to 31^st March, 1978. The claim of the landlady for bona

fide personal requirement was denied by the tenant.

6.

Regular Civil Suit No. 466 of 1978 was filed by the landlady

claiming that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1976 and,

therefore, the tenant has became defaulter and the landlady

wanted the shop premises for her own bona fide personal use.

After 10^th February, 1978, the tenant kept the shop premises

{4}

wp2709-16

closed for a period of eight months and did no business during

that period. Thus, clause “non user of tenanted premises” is

attracted.

7.

The tenant resisted the suit by filing written statement

contending that after receipt of the legal notice, the entire

amount of arrears of rent was sent to the landlady by money

order. It was further contended that the rent claimed by the

landlady was not the standard rent of the shop premises. The

tenant denied that the shop premises was kept close for eight

months. The tenant contended that he would suffer greater

hardships, if he is required to vacate t