K.VENKATASWAMI - (1.) THE appellant-landlady, who was successful before the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Bombay, in getting an order of eviction against the respondent-tenant but failed before the High Court, has filed this appeal by special leave challenging the reversing decision of the High Court.
(2.) THE appellant claiming to be the owner of Flat No. 3 situated on the ground floor of building bearing Plot No. 42, the Sindhi Immigrants Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Chembur Road, Bombay, preferred an application under Section 13A1(i)A(ii) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act') seeking eviction of the tenant (respondent herein) from the said premises. According to the appellant, the plot bearing No. 42 was initially allotted in favour of her mother, Smt. Navabai wife of Udharam by the Housing Society. Later on, Moti Ram brother of the appellant, was accepted as a member of the Housing Society in place of Smt. Navabai. Still later i.e. some time in November, 1960, the appellant's father Udharam became a member in place of Motiram. THE said Motiram constructed the present building consisting of ground, first and second floors in Plot bearing No. 42. On 11-9-69, Udharam died leaving behind three sons and three daughters including the appellant. On 23-9-69, a Deed of Declaration was executed among the legal heirs of the deceased Udharam whereunder the appellant and one of her brothers, Hiranand were allotted the ground floor. THE ground floor itself consisted of four flats. THE Housing Society by its Resolution dated 24-9-69 accepted the inter se arrangement as mentioned above. Again on 31-1-88, on being informed, the Housing Society accepted the arrangement reached between the appellant and her brother, Hiranand, whereunder Flat Nos. 1 and 2 of the ground floor were allotted to Hiranand and Flat Nos. 3 and 4 fell to the share of the appellant. Of the four flats on the ground floor at the relevant time, Flat Nos. 2 to 4 were in possession of tenants. THE respondent was a tenant in Flat No. 3. THE appellant was residing along with the family of her brother in Flat No. 1. Finding that it was no longer possible to get on with her sister-in-law, the appellant preferred an application for possession of Flat No. 3 alleging that she being a holder of scientific post in the Department of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (for short BARC) was entitled to invoke Section 13A1 (A)(ii) of the Act. She also enclosed necessary Certificate to support her claim that she was holding a scientific post in the Department of BARC and that she had no other suitable premises for her residence in the local area where the suit premises was situated. It was also claimed by the appellant that her claim was bona fide and her joint living with her brother's family was no longer possible for reasons given in the application. The application for eviction was resisted by the respondent. It was alleged in the written statement that the appellant was not the owner of the suit flat; that there was no relationship of a landlord and tenant between them; that she was not holding a post of Scientific Officer in BARC; that Flat No. 1 on the ground floor was conveniently divided into Flat Nos. 1A and 1B and the appellant was in possession of one of the flats and that, therefore, her claim was not bona fide.
(3.) BEFORE the Competent Authority, the appellant, besides examining herself, has examined the Assistant Personnel Officer of the BARC to prove the Certificate dated 2-7-88. She also examined the Manager of the Housing Society to support her claim that Flat Nos. 3 and 4 were ultimately allotted to her share under the arrangement between the appellant and her brother. She also examined her Aunt, an old lady of 64 years, to prove that the appellant was not able to get on with her brother's family consisting of her brother, sister-in-law and two college going children and the relationship between the appellant and her sister-in-law was strained. The respondent-tenant examined himself to substantiate the allegations made in his written statement. He also examined a Supervisor in the Local Department of the Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Ltd., Santacruz, to depose that the appellant had made an application for transfer of the electric meter in Flat No. 1A to her name. He also examined a ward Officer in the Chembur Ward of the Bombay Municipal Corporation to elicit that the whole property No. 42 stands in the name of Motiram Udharam Jagasia. In addition to the above, he also examined his son to speak about the details regarding Flat No. 1A and 1B.;