Burden to prove tenancy in declaration suit lies squarely on claimant; no rent receipts or agreement fatal; long possession insufficient; appellate court cannot shift onus or consider irrelevancies like service document gaps.

JUDGMENT:

1. This Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2013 passed by District Judge-20 Pune in Civil Appeal No. 65/2012, by which the said Appeal filed by the Respondent is allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2012 passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon, Maval, Pune in Regular Civil Suit No. 256/2008. By the impugned decree of the Appellate Court, the Suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff has been decreed, declaring him as tenant in respect of Suit premises.

2. The Respondent is the Original Plaintiff and the Petitioner is the Original Defendant in a Suit filed under for declaration of tenancy under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (‘MRC Act’ for short).

3. A room measuring 8x8 sq.ft. situated in Madhusadan bungalow, House No. 52A, C Ward, S. P. Road, Lonavala, Taluka-Maval, District-Pune is the Suit premises.

4. In December 2008, the Respondent filed a said suit contending inter alia as under. That he was working in a company and had no place to stay at Lonavala and therefore, mother of Petitioner (Smt. Pushpabai Bhimji) let out the Suit premises to him on monthly tenancy for rent of Rs.50/- per month. That after the death of Petitioner's mother, Petitioner had disputes with his tenants and therefore the Petitioner got Respondent’s signatures on blank stamp papers. That from 1996, the rent of the suit premises was increased to Rs.100/- per month. That the Respondent never demanded rent receipts because he was needy and illiterate. That the Petitioner was insisting with the Respondent for vacating the suit premises and therefore the Respondent issued a suit-notice dated 03.11.2008 showing readiness to pay rent for proper receipts issued. That Petitioner sent false notice-reply. That contention in the notice-reply is false. That taking advantage of the Respondent's illiteracy and neediness, his signatures are taken on blank stamp-papers for fabricating documents. However, the Respondent was always monthly tenant. On these grounds, the said suit was filed seeking declaration of tenancy, for fixation of standard rent and for perpetual injunction, not to disturb possession.

5. The Petitioner filed written statement denying that the suit premises was given on rent to the Respondent. He contended as under. That the bungalow in question was a big property, having many rooms and open space and since his mother was an old lady, she was in need of a gardener. That the Respondent was appointed as a gardener on monthly salary and by virtue of his service as gardener, the suit premises was permitted to be used. That the Respondent has signed nokar-namas and declarations yearly and salary has been paid to the Respondent and the Petitioner paid tip/gift- money of Rs. 600/- to 800/- from time to time on every visit, over and above salary. That the service of the Respondent as a gardener has been terminated and therefore he is a trespasser.

6. Counter claim was filed by the Petitioner for declaration and recovery of possession and injunction with claim for mesne profit. By order dated 02.01.2012, the Trial Court returned the counter-claim to the Petitioner for presenting before Competent Authority appointed under provisions of MRC Act, so far as the counter claim is concerned.

7. The Respondent examined himself. The Petitioner examined himself as well as Advocate Shriram Gopal Kuber