2025:BHC-AS:44611 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5205 OF 2002 Milind Rajkumar Wagholikar (Shah)

Age about 42 years, Occupation : Business Contractor R/at: Baramati Tal. Baramati, District-Pune ...Petitioner Versus

1. Shankar Ramchandra Kirve Age about 50 years, Occupation : Trade, R/o. Baramati, District : Pune

2. Kishor Mahadeo Shelke, SNEHA NITIN Age/adult, Occu: Business.

CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN 3. Shri Ganesh Mahadeo Shelke CHAVAN Date: 2025.10.14 Age/adult, Occu: Business

18:38:58 +0530 Nos. 2 nd 3 are R/o. Shravan Galli, Baramati, District : Pune ...Respondents ***

Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni a/w Mr. Abhishek Roy & Ms. Sweta Shah for the Petitioner.

Mr. G.N. Salunke a/w Mr. P. A. Pol, Mr. Sharad Suryawanshi for Respondents.

***

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. RESERVED ON : 16.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 13.10.2025 :JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule was granted on

16.09.2002.

2. In this judgment, for convenience and brevity, Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is referred to as ‘the Bombay Rent Act’ and the words ‘under section’ are referred to as ‘u/s.’

3. This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the impugned common Judgment and Decree/Order dated 06.02.2002 passed by the 2^nd Additional District Judge, Baramati passed in Civil Appeal No. 88/1997, by which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and Civil Revision Application No. 1 of 1998 filed by the present Respondent No.1 were dismissed by common judgment.

4. The Petitioner is original Plaintiff/landlord in respect of a land bearing CTS No. 506/34, new CTS No. 866 admeasuring about 7500 sq. ft. at ward No.4, Baramati which is the ‘suit property’. The Petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 152 of 1994 for recovery of possession and arrears of rent against present Respondents under provisions of Bombay Rent Act on the ground of illegal sub-letting, bona-fide requirement and default. The said suit was dismissed on 14.03.1997 by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baramati. Along with the said suit, the application for fixing standard rent was also heard (CMA 25/1993) and standard rent was fixed at Rs.100/- per month, excluding taxes. The Petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 88/1997 challenging dismissal of the suit. The Respondent No. 1 filed Civil Revision Application No. 1/1998 challenging the order of fixing standard rent. Learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Baramati, dismissed both the appeal and revision under common impugned Judgment dated 06.02.2002.

5. The case of the Petitioner, in short is as under. That after the demise of the father of Respondent No.1, the tenancy devolved upon Respondent No.1, who stopped the dairy business of his father and illegally sublet the suit property to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are operating garage in the suit property. That Respondent No.1 is collecting exorbitant rent from Respondent nos. 2 and 3. That the Petitioner, who is a Civil Engineer, wants to construct ownership apartment scheme on suit property. That he has prepared plans and got it sanctioned from the municipal authority and the Petitioner also has sufficient funds for making construction. That the Plaintiff requires the suit property as per provisions of Section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act. That despite the suit notice being issued, Respondent No.1 did not comply and he is in arrears.

6. The Respondent No. 1 filed written statement (Exh. 11) which was adopted by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 by purshis (Exh. 12). They contended inter alia that suit property was obtained on monthly lease at rent of Rs.40/- for business purpose. That Respondent No.1 is owner of the garage on the suit property and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are mere servants. That rent was increased from Rs.40/- per month to Rs.100/- per month which rent is paid regularly. That rent receipts are not issued since June 1991. That amount was sent with notice reply under a cheque,