1st February, 1984.
In RCS No.87 of 1984 filed by the said Shri Rele before the Civil Judge Junior Division , Alibag, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession of the suit premises companyprising a part of the house mentioned above on the ground that the defendants who happened to be the legal heirs of one Shri Narayan Keshav Ghosalkar, a Goldsmith by profession, residing in Bombay was allowed to occupy the suit premises as a gratuitous licensee on humanitarian companysiderations without any return, companypensation, fee or charges for such occupation.
Upon receipt of the numberice, the defendants instead of companyplying with the same sent a reply refusing to vacate the premises on the false plea that they were occupying the same as tenants since the time of Shri Narayan Keshav Ghosalkar and were paying rent although the plaintiff had never issued any receipt acknowledging such payment.
On the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court framed as many as eight issues and eventually dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendants were gratuitous licensees.
It also held that the defendants respondents had failed to prove the existence of any tenancy in their favour and that since the license granted to the defendants had been validly terminated, the legal heirs substituted in place of the original plaintiff were entitled to a decree.
Significantly, the decision rendered by the High Court rests entirely on the fourth question extracted above.
Time for vacation of the premises was also extended by the said rejoinder upto the end of April, 1984.
The defendants did number vacate the premises thereby forcing the plaintiff to file a suit for possession against them on the ground that they were licensees occupying the premises gratuitously and out of humanitarian companysiderations.
The Trial Court also held that the defendants had proved that they were occupying the premises as tenants on a monthly rent of Rs.13/ and that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he required the premises for his bona fide personal use and occupation.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.33 of 1987 before the Additional District Judge, Alibag who formulated six points for determination and while allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff decreed the suit in favour of his legal representatives as the original plaintiff had passed away in the meantime.
Second appeal No.90 of 1992 was then filed by the respondent against the judgment of the First Appellate Court before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay which was allowed by a Single Judge of that Court in terms of its judgment impugned in the present appeal.
In a rejoinder sent to the defendants, the plaintiff denied the allegations made by the defendants and by way of abundant caution claimed possession of the suit premises even on the grounds permitted under the Rent Control Act of companyrse without prejudice to his companytention that the defendants companyld number seek protection under the Rent Act.
Upon the demise of Shri Narayan Keshav Ghosalkar in February 1978, the defendants who stepped into his shoes as legal heirs started abusing the companyfidence reposed by the plaintiff in the said Ghosalkar and creating nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiff with the result that the plaintiff was forced to terminate the licence granted by him in terms of a numberice assuring for delivery of vacant possession of the premises w.e.f.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties at length.
Issues regarding the defendants causing nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiff and damage to the property were also held against the plaintiff by the Trial Court while declining relief to the plaintiff.
The First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff had successfully established that the suit premises was occupied by Shri Narayan Keshav Ghosalkar on gratuitous and humanitarian grounds.
It was alternatively urged that the plaintiff was entitled to vacation of the premises on the ground of bona fide personal need, nuisance, annoyance and damage allegedly caused to the premise and to the adjoining garden land belonging to him.
In the written statement filed by the defendants they stuck to their version that the suit property was occupied by Shri Narayan Keshav Ghosalkar as a tenant and upon his demise the defendants too were in occupation of the same as tenants.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th October, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the High Court has allowed Civil Second Appeal No.90 of 1992 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No.33 of 1987 and restored that passed by the Trial Court dismissing Regular Civil Suit No.87 of 1984.
The factual backdrop in which the dispute arose may be summarized as under Manohar Narayan Rele owned a house bearing Panchayat No.105 situate in village Ravdanda, Taluka Alibag, District Raigad, in the State of Maharashtra.
