500 of 1985.
The tenant respondent feeling aggrieved filed an application for Revision under Section 26 of the said Act in the High Court at Bombay Aurangabad Bench being Civil Revision Application No.
50 per month.
He, however, denied the appellants allegation that he required the suit premises for his personal use.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.9.1989 of the Bombay High Court in C.R.A. No.
Shankarrao Marutirao Sonawane, one of the partners of respondent firm filed his written statement before the Additional Rent Controller accepting the ownership of the appellant and tenancy of the respondent at the rate of Rs.
4 16 101 situated a Mondha, Taluka, District Aurangabad maharashtra under section 15 3 a iii of the Hyderabad House Rent, Eviction and Lease Control Act, 1954 to be hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act on the ground inter alia that the respondent was the tenant of the said shop attached to the said house of the appellant landlord on the monthly rent of Rs.50 per month and the tenancy companymences from the Ist day of every month according to the English calendar, that the landlord appellant required the suit shop for his own personal use as he intended to start companymission agency and other business in the said shop, that he terminated the tenancy of the respondency of the respondent by serving the two numberices dated 28.3.1969 and 8.12.1970 and that the respondent did number vacate the suit premises, hence the suit has been filed for eviction of the tenant respondent from the said premises.
C. Birla for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The matrix of the case is as follows The appellant landlord, Chandmal, S o Sumermal Surana as plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the respondent defendent Firm Ram Chandra Vishwanath, a companymission agent firm from his shop bearing Municipal No.
Against this judgment and order, the tenant respondent filed an appeal being Rent Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, J. We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and we grant special leave.
2279 of 1991.
500 of 1985.
This appeal on special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed in Civil Revision Application No.
N. Ganpule, S.V. Deshpande and Ms. Priya Gupta for the Respondent.
500 of 1985 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench allowing the Revision, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge in Rent Appeal No.
ARC/71/3.
5 of 1984 companyfirming and allowing the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Controller, Aurangabad in C. No.
According to the respondent, the appellant is a member of Hindu joint family companyprising of his father, Sumermal, his real brothers and appellant and as one of the partners of registered firm runs a kirana of companymission agency shop under the name and style of M s Rajmal Sumermal Surana.
