BAJARANG MARUTI ANDHALKAR Vs. CHANDRAKANT HIRAMAN CHOUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15.9.1984 passed by the 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.889/1981. That Appeal was filed by the present respondent, challenging the order dated 22.6.1981 passed by the 5th Addl. Small Causes Judge, Pune in Civil Suit No.2301/1977. That civil suit was filed by Chandrakant Chaudhari of whom the present respondents are legal representatives, claiming a declaration that he is tenant of two rooms and a gallery on the ground floor in the house No.853 on Bhanderkar Institute Road, Shivajinagar, Pune. The trial court, however, dismissed the suit. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff tenant, the appellate court, however, reversed the findings recorded by the trial court, allowed the Appeal and decreed the suit filed by the respondent-tenant. The appellate court declared that the Chandrakant was the tenant of the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs.150/- plus education cess. The appellate court also restrained the petitioner-landlord permanently from evicting the respondents-tenant otherwise than in accordance with law. The dispute between the parties was whether Chandrakant was occupying the suit premises as a lodger or as a tenant.

(2.) SHRI Naik, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged before me that from the year 1966 in the western half portion of the building, a lodge was being run and that the suit premises were given to deceased Chandrakant as a lodger and not as a tenant. He urged before me that the plaintiff-tenant has not placed any material on the record to show that he took possession of the suit premises on 1.6.1967. In the submission of Shri Naik, because in the suit building a lodging house was being run by one Sadashiv Rambhau Andhalkar from whom the present petitioner got the possession of the suit premises by virtue of the agreement between the petitioner and original owner Sadashiv and therefore, in the submission of the learned counsel, Chandrakant was occupying the premises as a lodger. In appreciating the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has to be seen that in para 10 of the judgment of the appellate court, the appellate court has observed thus: