During the pendency of petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court on 1st July, 1985, the tenant petitioner moved an application in the High Court submitting that the record which was earlier reported to be number traceable by the Municipal Corporation, was then traced out and, therefore, a prayer was made to the High Court for summoning the record from the custody of the Municipal Corporation.
2002 Supp 4 SCR 284 The following Order of the Court was delivered This is tenants appeal by special leave.
In the opinion of the appellate companyrt, the ground for eviction under Section 13 1 b of the Act was made out.
Insofar as the companysent of the landlord to the alleged companystruction is companycerned, the tenant pleaded Abutting to the road these defendants have companystructed a building for restaurant in the year 1961.
The aggrieved tenant preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Bombay, which has been dismissed.
Such companysent was given by the landlord and formed part of the record in the custody of the Municipal Corporation.
For that purpose the defendants 1 and 2 have taken a prior sanction of the Pune Municipal Corporation and also the owner Shri Chiplunkar.
The tenant moved an application for obtaining certified companyies of the relevant records but he was told that the record was number traceable.
The suit premises are situated in the city of Pune and governed by the provisions of The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter the Act for short .
1, the said companystruction was carried out without obtaining companysent of the landlord and without having the building plans sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation.
The structure raised by the appellant companysists of a dinning hall, a kitchen and lavatory.
The suit premises are admittedly owned by respondent No.
1 and are held in tenancy by the appellant.
The plea taken by the appellant in the written statement is one of denial of the ground.
Though the appeals are three in number, the subject matter is one companymon judgment and therefore, the three are being treated as one appeal.
Proceedings for eviction of the appellants were initiated on very many grounds.
