SHESHRAO RAGHOBA SURYAWANSHI Vs. SONCHAND SOBHAGMALJI DARDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Sochand and his grand-son-Kishore aged about 20 years constituted a Joint Hindu Family which owned a house situated on Saroj Talkies Chouk, Yavatmal. The house faces north and is situated in business locality. It has got 3 shops facing north. Two shops are of the size 6 x 8 while one shop is of the size of 10 x 10. The tenants occupying these 3 shops carry on Hair Cutting business in these shops. Sonchands son Suresh having predeceased his son Kishore. It appears that Sonchand and his grand-son Kishore are continuing as male coparceners of the joint Hindu family. Sonchand filed 3 applications against the 6 petitioners in the above three special civil applications occupying the three shops claiming that his grand-son Kishore was studying in commerce college but was not good at studies and, therefore, he wanted to settle his grant-son in business by starting a Stationary and General Stores in the three shops in question. He submitted that it was his duty to settle his grand-son Kishore in business and guide him. At one time Sonchand himself carried on the trade of cloth, Stationary and General merchant. It was claimed that Kishore wanted to leave the College and start the shop, the moment it was available. Sonchand also pointed out that he had about Rs. 15,000 by way of hard cash in bank account.

(2.) On behalf of the tenants it was submitted that Sonchand was in possession of an adjoining room measuring 6 x 6 used as a Bithak and this claim for occupation of 3 shops was not a bona fide claim. According to the tenants, it was a pretext to increase rent. Sonchand and Kishore examined themselves to prove the case of bona fide need. Tenants examined themselves to controvert the alleged bona fide need. The Rent Controller carried on spot inspection and came to a conclusion that the baithak 6 x 6 occupied by Sonchand was used for sleeping purposes and further found that it was not useful for business. The learned Rent Controller, Yavatmal as well as the Appellate Authority found that the landlord had established need for the three shops, that the need was bona fide, that the landlord had no other premises of his own and the landlord wanted to start Stationary business for settling his grand-son Kishore who was not interested in prosecuting his studies further and the landlord had necessary capital. The authorities found that Sonchand had previous experience of this business and the rooms were located in front of Saroj Talkies which was a business locality. On these findings permission were granted by the learned Rent Controller, Yavatmal in 3 Revenue Cases to Sonchand to terminate the tenancy of the tenants occupying three shop premises. This decision was affirmed in three appeals by the Resident Deputy Collector, Yavatmal acting as Rent Control Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved by these decisions, three special civil applications have been filed by tenants of three shops premises.

(3.) Shri Bapat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these three petitions submitted that in Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of (Eknath Bhanudas Utane v. Shankarrao Deorao Jumde and another) 1971 Mh.L.J. 546, it was held that house in Clause 2(3) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 includes a building or a part of a building and when the landlord was occupying a part of a building it had to be held that he was occupying house of his own. It was submitted that upon this interpretation that was placed upon Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 by a Full Bench of this Court, it will have to be found in the present case that the landlord who was admittedly occupying the residential portion of the house in question and a baithak, was occupying any other house of his own in the city or town concerned and, therefore, in terms of sub-clause (vi) of Clause 13(3) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 which reads as under :