MALKHANSINGH NAZARSINGH CHAUHAN Vs. GODRICK MAENUAL DIAS
LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-201
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on November 06,2017

Malkhansingh Nazarsingh Chauhan Appellant
VERSUS
Godrick Maenual Dias Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.S.PATEL,J. - (1.) Writ Petition No. 5379 of 2005 is filed by the original Defendant ("Chauhan") in an eviction suit filed by the Respondent ("Dias") in that Writ Petition ("the tenant's Petition"; "Chauhan's Petition"). Chauhan challenges concurrent findings against him. Dias is the landlord. He is also the Petitioner in an earlier Writ Petition No. 4523 of 1996 ("the landlord's Petition"; "Dias's Petition"). That writ petition is against the concurrent finding of the courts below in Chauhan's favour dismissing Dias's first eviction suit. The consequence is that if the tenant's later writ petition, Chauhan's Petition of 2005 fails, i.e., Chauhan does not succeed in having the decree against him set aside, then the landlord's earlier writ petition of 1996 is infructuous. I propose, therefore, to begin with Chauhan's Writ Petition No. 5379 of 2005. I believe that will sufficiently cover the entire conspectus of both matters. For convenience, I will refer to parties by their names.
(2.) First, as to the property in question. This is situated at 529, Centre Street, Camp, Pune 411 001. Dias owns this property. The portion rented out to Chauhan consists of two rooms, each 10 ft x 19 ft, one at the front and one at the rear of the Centre Street property. The property is described in Schedules "A" and "B" to Dias's plaint. Dias created the tenancy in favour of Chauhan by an agreement dated 7th March 1977.1 The agreement allowed Chauhan to make repairs and renovations necessary for the purposes of carrying on a clothing and tailoring business. Clause 8 of the agreement said that the tenancy was created only for this business and for no other purpose. As a part of the litigation history, it is necessary only to note that Dias earlier filed Civil Suit No. 415 of 1985 against Chauhan seeking his eviction inter alia on the ground that he required the property for his personal, reasonable and bona fide use. In that suit, he also alleged Chauhan to have made unauthorized additions and alterations to the tenanted premises.
(3.) That suit was dismissed after evidence. Dias filed Civil Appeal No. 553 of 1991. The appeal was dismissed on 12th January 1996. Dias filed Writ Petition No. 4523 of 1996 against that appellate order. While that writ petition was pending, Dias filed a fresh Suit No. 647 of 1997. This suit was decreed on 18th July 2004 by the Trial Court.2 Chauhan carried the matter in Civil Appeal No. 456 of 2004. It is the order of the Appellate Court of 15th July 2005 in this Civil Appeal that Chauhan challenges in his Writ Petition No. 5379 of 2005.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.