- (1.) A systematic strategy adopted by the Respondent after easily systematic manoeuvring though under the camoulflage of purported good faith, to defeat the lawful claim of the petitioner herein who is the landlady, has landed her in an uncomfortable situation. The characteristic peculiarity of this proceeding, however, which is more surprising is that the learned Appellate Judge was persuaded to accept not only the untenable but almost fraudulent claim which has entailed into utter mis-carriage of justice. The petition must succeed even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) House No. 563 located in Deolali Camp area in Nashik District is of the ownership of the petitioner and she purchased it in the year 1973 for her personal occupation. The respondent herein was inducted as a monthly tenant at the rate of Rs. 13 even prior to the purchase and attornment was made with reference to the said tenant after the purchase. The petitioner on account of some differences with her husband was obliged to stay with her parents and the accommodation was wholly inadequate. It is claimed that she required the premises bonafide and reasonably for her personal use and occupation. A further claim was made that the respondent acquired alternate suitable accommodation. It is on all these counts that the tenancy was terminated and the rental arrears and possession was demanded by notice dated 26.11.1973 which was received by the Petitioner on 27.11.1973. Though he transmitted the amount of rental arrears, the demand for possession was not complied with which obliged the plaintiff to file Civil Suit No. 32 of 1974 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik.
(3.) Resisting the suit on all counts the respondent denied that he was in rental arrears or that the petitioner require the suit premises for her personal use and occupation. As regards the alternate accommodation he came out with a specific case admitting that he did secure the alternate premises from his tenant under a decree by the Court though according to him the tenant's son forcibly took possession of the said premises and as such he has been deprived of the benefit of the decree and consequently he cannot be said to have acquired alternate suitable accommodation.;