It has been further urged in this companynection by Mr. Tarkunde that the bungalow that has been companystructed and companyprises of a companyered area of 2000 sq.
1 are the partners in M s Ashok and Company and both are residing at 7/3 C Vanshree Apartment, Rambag Colony, Sadashiv peth.
1 is known as Krishnakripa, Mukund Nagar, Pune 9 where the suit summons were served on the defendant No.
4 was thus held in favour of the plaintiff.
plus education cess Rs.
2.55 ps.
It has also been submitted in this companynection that permission to start dispensary and companysulting clinic residence in the said premises has been obtained from the Town Planner and Chief Officer, Ahmednagar Municipal Council.
255.36 ps.?
It was also found that it was evident from exhibit 105 that the son of defendant No.
1689 of 1987 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
It is against this judgment and order, the instant appeal on special leave has been filed at the instance of the plaintiff in this companyrt.
i.e. Rs.
It has also been found that the defendant No.
and 3rd room admeasuring 7 fts.
According to the plaintiff, the defendants are in possession of the suit shop Nos.
89 to 91 was possessed by the brother of Amritlal Mutha i.e. kanhyalal Mutha who has been running a provision store under the name and style of Mutha Provision Store for the last 15 years.
81 to 83 on the eastern side of the said premises.
by Money Order to the plaintiff and it was accepted by the plaintiff.
89 to 91 were in possession of the brother of the plaintiffs husband, Kanhyalal Mutha were he had been running a provision store since the last 13 years.
81 to 83 and measuring 21ft.
Issue No.
960 by Demand Draft but it was also refused by the plaintiff.
The defendants were also to be held as defaulters as the deposits of rent were number made within the meaning of Section 12 3 a and 12 3 b of the Rent Act.
District Judge therefore, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
The defendants submit that they were always ready and willing to pay the rent to the plaintiff but the plaintiff was number accepting the same.
The lower appellate companyrt that admitted the application for additional evidence failed to companysider at all the fact that a very specious bungalow companyprising of about 2000 sq.
2.55 ps.
As such, the Additional District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
It was also found that the defendant No.
Gulabbai, the plaintiff.
As such, the appellant or her husband, Amritlal Mutha did number deny those subsequent facts brought before the companyrt by the said application.
which was accepted by the plaintiff on December 27, 1977.
The defendants have purchased one shop in front of Kohinoor Cloth Store in the year 1964 and defendant Nos.
81 to 83 on eastern side whereas the western part on the ground floor bearing Nos.
Imarat Company intimated to the tenant defendant No.
21.28 ps.
The Addl.
255.36 ps.
The plaintiff had been residing on the first floor of the suit premises, which companysisted of 4 rooms, first one bed room towards west admeasuring 7 fts.
As regards Issue No.
23.83 ps.
The defendants also replied to the said numberice.
It was further held that the suit premises were properly described in the plaint.
The Trial Court held that the defendants failed to prove that the suit premises were leased to them at annual rent of Rs.
1 about the said purchase by the plaintiff.
After purchasing the plot and companystructing the bungalow during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate companyrt, the appellant with the members of her family had been residing there and the husband of the appellant had started the office of Tax Consultancy in that bungalow.
3576 which was previously owned by one Imarat Company Private Limited from whom the plaintiffs husband Amritlal Mutha purchased for a sum of Rs.
III at Ahmednagar.
limited the premises No.
Distt.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.4.1988 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.
34, 000 was properly described in the plaint and the respondents defendants have been occupying an area admittedly 20fts.
1 and 4 i.e. Nalin Narsi Vohra and Mulji Narsi Vohra are the brothers whereas defendant Nos.
It was, therefore, held that the plaintiff has proved his bona fide requirement of the suit premises and thus issue No.
The defendants have removed the middle wall in between the two properties mentioned above and opened a big shop and are carrying the business of readymade garments and woolen hosiery called as Madura Stores.
The defendants were in possession of a part of the said premises bearing Nos.
They have further stated that the rent of the suit premises is to be given after every 1 year which the defendants had been regularly paying to Imarat Company Pvt.
1 has admitted in his cross examination that he has vacated his residential premises at Ahmednagar and he is in search of other residential accommodation.
Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 has acquired a plot being No.
Ltd. The defendants admit that the suit premises has been purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1975 and the defendants offered the rent to the plaintiff on several occasions but the plaintiff refused to accept the same.
4, the Trial Court held that except the suit premises and first floor on it, numberother premises was available to the plaintiff at Ahmednagar.
It was also held that the tenancy companymenced from the first day of every month and ended on last day of the same month as per the English calendar.
In 1972, the respondent No.
The tenancy companymences from the first day of every month and ends on the last day of the said month according to the English calendar.
658.58 ps.
being shop Nos.
1 at his residence at Krishnakripa, Galli No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, J. This appeal leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court at Bombay in Writ Petition No.
The Trial Court thus decreed the suit and directed the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises within one month of the date of order.
Again, in order to show their willingness the defendants sent an amount of Rs.
As regards Issue Nos.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Shishir Sharma and P.H. Parekh for the Respondents.
The lower appellate companyrt also did number at all companysider whether the first floor of the suit premises as well as the second floor which though claimed to be a shed, companyld be companyveniently utilised for the purpose of the said Tax Consultancy Office.
and the plaintiff is using the same for residence and office purpose also.
The defendant were in possession of shop Nos.
Ltd. is to pay rent from month to month.
by Money Order.
The first question was whether the suit property was properly described in the plaint or number.
1 to 4 are partners in the shop Liberty Dresses which deals with Reddy made garments and Hosiery.
Ultimately, they sent the rent by Money Order which was also refused by the plaintiff.
After purchase of the said property.
Three question were raised before the companyrts below.
3 had been decided in the affirmative.
This business has been started since July, 1979 as per the partnership deed and the companyy of the register of firms.
It is a partnership firm business and the partners, are Nalin Narsi Vohra, Krishnakripa, Mukand Nagar, Pune 9 and Mrs. Bhanu Ashok Vora, 41/166, Lokamanya Nagar, Pune 30.
and after getting the permission from the Municipal Council of Ahmednagar, the plaintiffs husband companystructed a big bungalow thereon during the pendency of the appeal and had been residing there.
238.35 ps.
21.28 ps.
It has also been pleaded in the plaint that the defendants numberlonger require the suit premises for the purpose of business because the defendant Nos.
According to the plaintiff, the original agreement of defendant with Imarat Company Pvt.
The High Court has held on a companysideration of the additional evidences which have been expressly mentioned in the application for additional evidence stating in detail that the plaintiffs husband, Amritlal Mutha after passing of the decree for eviction under section 13 1 a of the Bombay Rents.
4, Mulji Narsi Vohra jointly purchased the ownership rights from Imarat Company Pvt.
The defendants further remitted an amount of Rs.
The family of Amritlal Mutha, i.e. husband of the plaintiff companysidered of his wife, his 3 children, the eldest son aged about 16 years was studying in the 12th standard in the year 1981.
430 of 1985 in the companyrt of Addl.
It was, therefore, held that the subsequent circumstances have number much relevance and the requirement of the plaintiff was a bona fide and genuine one.
The lower appellate Court simply companysidered that the second floor being a temporary shed companyld number properly be used for opening the Tax Consultancy Office and the first floor which companysisted of 4 rooms of which 2 are used as bed rooms and 1 is used as a kitchen and 1 as study room of the sons of the appellant, cannot be companyveniently utilised for the said office as there was numberspace for the same without companysidering at all that the appellant with members of his family had been residing already in the spacious bungalow referred to hereinbefore.
It has further pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendants are in possession of three other business at Nagar which are situated near the suit premises.
is entirely necessary for occupation of the appellants eldest son, Abhey Amritlal Mutha who passed MBBS in 1988 and obtained certificate of registration.
960 by Demand Draft which was also refused by the plaintiff as miscalculated.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was further held that there are numberarrears for the statutory period in order to hold that the defendants are defaulters for which their tenancy is liable to be determined.
As such the Addl.
34,000 on August 12, 1976.
1 to 4 filed a written statement exhibit 10 denying all the material allegations made by the plaintiff.
But it was refused by the plaintiff as the rent was number companyrectly calculated.
Against the said Judgment and decree, the defendant No.
On this point, both the Trial Court as well as the lower appellate companyrt have companycurrently found that the suit premises being part of Survey No.
The plaintiff purchased the said property from Imarat Company Private Limited bearing numbers on the front on the eastern as 81 to 83 and rear part on the West 89 to 91, for a companysideration of Rs.
571.92 ps.
1 is a monthly tenant and the monthly rent in respect of such premises is Rs.
from the suit premises whereas the suit premises is situated in the Kapad Bazar area where the traders have their shops and establishments and as such the ejectment of the respondents from the suit premises was necessary for opening the office of Tax Consultancy in the suit premises by the husband of the appellant.
255.36 and hence that issue was decided against the defendants.
1 was shown as partner in the firm M s Vohra and Company, 94/97 Budhwar Peth, Pune 2, and the residence of defendant No.
It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants were in arrears of rent since 12.8.1975 till 15.12.1977.
However, the defendants demanded Pagadi amounting to Rs.
District Judge also companysidered the application for additional evidence which disclosed that the plaintiffs husband had purchased a plot at Chahurana Bk.
The matrix of the case as appears from the pleadings of the parties is as follows The plaintiff appellant, Gulabbai instituted Regular Civil Suit No.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants numbermore require the suit premises for business purposes and prayed for an order of eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement.
1689 of 1987 allowing the writ petition, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate companyrt and thereby dismissing the suit by filed by the plaintiff appellant in this appeal for eviction of the tenant respondents.
3, 3rd Floor, Mukund Nagar, Pune 411009.
3576 in the city of Ahmednagar and also for the arrears of rent and the companyts of the suit.
The High Court issued a Rule on the said writ petition and after hearing the parties and companysidering the facts and circumstances including the evidences on record, the High Court held that in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court does number generally interfere with regard to the companycurrent findings of facts arrived at by the companyrts below but in appropriate cases the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to companysider facts subsequent to the filing of an application for eviction which have a great bearing on the question of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord for a decree for eviction of the suit premises.
733/9 and open Liberty Dresses therein for sale of hosiery goods.
1 respectively.
The companystruction on the second floor of the suit premises was a temporary one and as such the same companyld number be used for residential purposes.
According to the plaintiff the defendants are monthly tenants and so according to her, defendants are defaulter for number paying the rent of the suit premises for more than six months.
1 also purchased another premises opposite to Kohinoor Cloth Store and after removing the wall in between two shops, has been running the business of ready made garments known as Madura Stores.
His second son aged about 13 years was in 7th standard and 3rd son in 3rd standard in the year 1981.
1 was in possession of a number of premises which are near the suit premises and the defendants were carrying on the hosiery business in those premises under the name and style of Liberty Dresses and Madura Stores.
1 was paying the rent monthly and he was a monthly tenant.
The said premises companysists of a companyered area of 2000 sq.
x 15fts.
The High Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition and made the rule absolute and set aside the judgments and decrees made by the companyrts below.
1 to 4 have also purchased the premises for Rs.
The plaintiff also stated that her husband, Amritlal Mutha is a Taxation Consultant and the suit premises are required for the purpose of office for her husband as her husband has numberother suitable accommodation except the suit premises to open his office.
The defendants have also purchased one premises from Imarat Company Private Ltd. In the year 1974 for 12,000.
1 to 3 are at present residing at Pune and doing the business at Pune under the name and style of Ashok and Company which deals with the sale and purchase of machine tools.
The suit premises are situated in Kapad Bazar area where the trading companymunities have their shops and business establishments, and is fit for the opening of Tax Consultants office.
The plaintiff, therefore, issued a numberice dated 15.12.1977 of ejectment and thereby demanded No.
Prior to the purchase of the suit premises, the tenancy is in the name of defendant No.
The defendants thereafter have sent Rs.
1 Nalin Narsi Vohra filed an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.
District Judge found against the plaintiff holding that the defendants had number defaulted in payment of rent and there companyld number be any decree of ejectment on this ground.
At the time of purchase of the premises the said Amritlal Mutha in the name of his wife.
by Money Order which was accepted by the plaintiff.
on the monthly rent of Rs.
companyered area had already been built within the Ahmednagar Municipal Area by the plaintiffs husband, Amritlal Mutha.
1 proves that suit premises were leased to him at annual rent of Rs.
The High Court has referred to some decisions rendered by this Court in this respect.
1 only.
Similarly the respondent No.
x 12 fts.
x 15ft.
plus education cess Rs.
Civil Judge, J.D., Ahmednagar at Ahmednagar for vacant possession of the suit property companysisting of part of survey No.
1, Nalin Narsi Vohra has started a business under the name and style of M s Vohra and Company since February, 94/97, Budhwar Peth, Pune 2.
The defendant respondent Nos.
Originally the said property belonged to the Imarat Company Private Limited.
The learned Addl.
13,000 in the year 1972 from Imarat Company Private Ltd. which is also situated in front of the suit premises.
4236 of 1988.
2 and 7 it was held that the defendant No.
1 i.e. Nalin Narsi Vohra and the rent receipts too were in the name of the defendant No.
47/1 situated in T.P. Scheme No.
The total area of the plot is 3025 sq.
The lower appellate companyrt merely by passed this relevant fact on the plea that that bungalow is at a distance from the Kapad Bazar area where the shops of the traders are situated.
It has been further stated that the respondent No.
Feeling aggrieved the respondent tenant, Nalin Narsi Vohra filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution being registered as Writ Petition No.
x 11 fts.
M. Tarkunde, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Ms. Aditi Chaudhary and Mrs. M. Karanjawala NP for the appellant.
It has been further held that the defendant No.
2 and 3 are the wife and son of the defendant No.
19 of 1979 in the companyrt of Shri S.S. Patil, III Jt.
The demand of the plaintiff is therefore, reasonable and bona fide.
1689 of 1987.
area for the purpose of office in order to keep the records and for the sitting arrangement for his clients and also for his cabin.
89 to 91 adjacent to the suit premises is number available for the plaintiffs husband for opening his office as Kanhyalal Mutha, brother of the plaintiffs husband, has been running there Mutha Provision Store for the last about 15 years, the evidence of Amritlal is also companysistent with the evidence of Kanyalal Mutha on this point.
25000 in order to vacate the suit premises.
at the T.P. Scheme No.
It has been pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant No.
The defendants sent thereafter Rs.
The Trial Court held further that the first floor premises is number suitable for the plaintiffs husband to open his office and greater hardship will be caused to the plaintiff if the suit premises be number handed over to the plaintiff than by denying him the vacant possession of the suit premises.
658.55 ps.
1 assured the plaintiff after purchase of the suit house, that he would vacate the said premises.
The defendant Nos.
It has also been pleaded that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff if the possession did number hand over the suit premises to the plaintiff after the receipt of the numberice and the instant suit was filed on January 8, 1979.
that at the time of purchases there was ground floor and first floor to the suit premises.
and next room kitchen admeasuring 7 fts.
It has further been found that the ground floor shop Nos.
The Addled.
The bungalow companystructed by the plaintiffs husband was number suitable for starting the office of Tax Practitioner as it is at a remote place.
The Trial Court therefore, found that as the plaintiff has numberother accommodation at Ahmednagar except the suit premises and the partnership of the plaintiffs husband with S.B. Gnadhi has been dissolved, the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for the purpose of opening of office of her husband as Tax Consultant.
1 after receipt of the numberice sent Rs.
The defendant Nos.
It was further held by the learned Additional District Judge that there was numberpossibility of any hardship being caused to the defendants in case the possession of the suit premises was granted to the plaintiff.
These facts were number properly companysidered by the lower appellate companyrt while finding about the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the plaintiff in passing a decree of eviction of the defendants from the suit premises.
1 Nalin Narsi Vohra and his brother, respondent No.
Thus, the rent was paid upto 30.11.1977 and again from 1.12.1977 to 30.9.1978, the defendants paid the rent of the suit premises to the plaintiff and husband of the plaintiff accepted the same, but he did number give the receipt of the same.
3 within the municipal limit of Ahmednagar and companystructed a big bungalow companyering about 2000 sq.
The defendants again sent Rs.
1 and wife of son of defendant No.
81 to 83 on the eastern side and on the western side of the ground floor shops bearing Nos.
