LAXMAN DATTATRAYA MORE Vs. MANOHAR NAMDEO KONDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners landlords challenge the validity of the judgment and order dated 28th June 1971 passed in Civil Appeal No. 822 of 1970 setting aside the decree of the trial Court and directing the petitioners to put the respondent-tenant in possession of one room on the first floor of the suit property which is vacant and in their possession.

(2.) The respondent had taken on lease one room on the ground floor of house No. 348/2, Genesh Peth, Poona, owned by the original petitioner's mother Sonubai Dattatraya More. Sonubai had filed Civil Suit No. 4444 of 1964 for recovery of possession of the said room against the respondent on the ground that the same was required by her for the purpose of erecting new construction on the premises sought to be demolished as provided under Section 13 (1) (hh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act"). That suit was finally decreed in Sonubai's favour on 25th February 1967. Sonubai had given necessary undertakings in the said suit as required by Section 13 (3-A) of the Bombay Rent Act. On making new contruction she had agreed to allow the respondent to occupy one room tenement therein.

(3.) Thereafter, on 25th April 1967, the respondent sent a written notice to Sonubai which was delivered to her on 27th Apr. 1967, informing her of his intention to occupy a room in the newly constructed house and his willingness to pay the standard rent in respect of the tenement and that his occupation shall be on the same terms and conditions on which he occupied the premises immediately before the eviction. On 28th Apr. 1967, the respondent handed over possession of the premises in his occupation to Sonubai. Thereafter, according to the respondent, he gave oral notices to Sonubai during her life-time. Sonubai died some time in Sept. 1967. Second notice dated 23rd Nov. 1967 was also served upon the present petitioners as the legal representatives of Sonubai, whereby the respondent registered his claim for possession of a tenement in the newly constructed house in accordance with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Bombay Rent Act. The petitioners by their reply dated 26th Dec. 1967 contended that the said notice dated 23rd Nov. 1967 was bad since the respondent had failed to give notice within six months from 28th Apr. 1967 when he delivered vacant possession to Sonubai. For this reason the said notice was not in compliance with the provisions of Section 17-B and that the respondent never gave notice to deceased Sonubai after 28th Apr. 1967 or to the petitioners as required by the provisions of the Rent Act of his intention to occupy a tenement in the new building. Therefore, the petitioners refused to provide accommodation in the new building-Hence the respondent brought the present suit being Civil Suit No. 1793 of 1968.