SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.5988 OF 1988

Shri Shyam Bhagwandas Kewalramani

since deceased by his legal heirs.

1) Mrs.Mohani Shyam Kewalramani

2) Miss.Lalita Shyam Kewalramani

3) Miss.Pramila Shyam Kewalramani

4) Mr.Vinod Shyam Kewalramani

All residing at : 229-330,

Mangalwar Peth, Pune-411 011 ...Petitioners

Versus

Mr.Murli Kisanchand Melwani,

since deceased by his legal heirs:

1(A) Dilip Murli Melwani,

Age 38 years, Occ.Profession

1(B) Anand Murli Melwani,

Age 35 years, Occ.Profession

1(C) Neelu Murli Melwani @

Neelu Anil Sonawane,

Age 36 years, Occ.Housewife

All R/o. 25/2, Shivaji Nagar,

Tanaji Wadi, Guru Kunj Apartment,

PUNE 411 005.

......

Mr.Umesh Mankapure for Petitioners.

Mr.S.M.Kamble for Respondents.

Mr.Dilip Murli Melwani, Respondent No.1(A) present

in-person.

: 2 :

......

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2008.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2008.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2008.

JUDGMENT :

JUDGMENT :

JUDGMENT :

1. Counsel for the Petitioners assures to

carry out amendment in the course of the day.

2. Mr.Kamble, Advocate pressed for discharge,

as the Petitioner No.1(A) Mr.Dilip Murli Melwani,

wants to appear in-person.

3. In the circumstances, the appearance of

Mr.Kamble, Advocate be effaced from the record, as

he is discharged.

4. Heard both the parties.

5. This Writ Petition by the tenant under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes

exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the

IVth Additional District Judge, Pune dated 30th

September 1988 in Civil Appeal No.476 of 1984.

: 3 :

Briefly stated, the Respondent/landlord, in respect

of the suit premises, instituted Suit for recovery

of possession thereof on the ground under Section

13(1)(b) and Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel

and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’).

6. The Trial Court, by Judgment and Decree

dated 13th March 1984 decreed the Suit on both

counts in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff.

Against the said decision, Petitioner/tenant

carried the matter in Appeal. The Appeal came to

be partly allowed by the impugned Judgment and

Decree. In that, the Appellate Court allowed the

Appeal preferred by the tenant to the extent of

ground under Section 13(1)(b) of the Act of 1947,

however, the Appeal filed by the tenant in respect