JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Heard the learned counsel for the Parties.
(2.)Revision Application is filed by the original
defendant nos.1 and 3, who are the tenants on the open
suit plot situated at Panchavati belonging to the
original plaintiffs, who are the respondent nos.1 and 2
before this Court. The suit plot was leased out to one
Raghosheth Tambe predecessor of the defendants under the
lease deed dated 7-12-1970. The lease period commenced
from 1-1-1971. It was for a period of 30 years and the
annual rent was Rs.751/- per year plus education cess of
Rs.82.50 paise. Rent was required to be paid in advance
every year. After death of original tenant Raghosheth,
his legal representatives continued to be tenants. The
plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.525 of 1985 on
20-7-1985. It was alleged that the defendant no.1 had
paid the rent upto 31st December, 1982. However, the
defendants were in arrears of rent from 1-1-1983.
Notice was issued on 1-12-1982 by the plaintiffs to the
defendants demanding arrears of rent and vacant
possession of the suit plot. There was no response.
Again a notice was issued on 23-7-1984 but still there
was no response. It was contended that the defendant
nos.1 to 3 were thus, defaulters in payment of the rent.
It was also contended that they had inducted defendant
no.4 as subtenant in respect of plot admeasuring 44 X
100 ft. and defendant no.5 as sub-tenant on piece of
plot admeasuring 12 ft. X 20 ft. Thus, there was
contravention of 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. It
was also contended that the plaintiff required the suit
plot for reasonable and bonafide requirement of the
trust to which the property belongs. On these three
grounds, plaintiff sought decree for eviction and for
possession.
(3.)The suit was contested by the defendant nos.1 to 3.
They admitted to have received the notice but
according to them they had already made payment in 1982
and they had sent money orders in 1984 as well as in
1985 but the same were not accepted. They also
contended that as per the terms of the contract, the
tenant could make construction and sublet the
constructed premises. As the defendant nos.1 to 3 did
not have sufficient funds for construction, they had
taken funds from the defendant no.4 and with consent of
Mahant Ramlakhandas plot was sublet. Defendant nos.4
and 5 also contested the suit by contending that the
Mahant Ramlakhandas had consented for leasing out
premises and also for construction of room, which is
made by the defendant no.5.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.