- (1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the decree for eviction as passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court.
(2.) The respondent is the original plaintiff that had filed a suit for eviction under the provisions of Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, 'the said Act'). According to the respondent, it was a Trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and it was the owner of the building standing on Plot No.95. The ground floor premises admeasuring about 2252 square feet had been let out to the petitioner no.1-Corporation for its use and occupation. Since the Trust was running a school on the upper floors and it intended to increase the activities of the said school, possession of the premises occupied by the petitioner no.1-Corporation was sought. The suit was accordingly filed in August-2012. In the written statement, it was denied that the claim of the petitioner no.1- Corporation was bona fide. It was pleaded that during pendency of the proceedings, possession has been delivered by other tenants to the Trust which thus satisfied its need. Before the trial Court, the Trust examined its President and another witness. Various documents including the permission granted to run the school were placed on record. On behalf of the petitioner no.1-Corporation, its Officer was examined. After considering that evidence, the trial Court recorded a finding that the need of the Trust was bona fide and that greater hardship would be caused to it if the decree was not passed. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner no.1- Corporation, the Appellate Court reiterated the said findings. Being aggrieved by the decree for eviction the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Ms N.A. Biala, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the documents on record were not sufficient to warrant a decree for eviction as passed by the Courts. The permission to run the said school was in the name of Paradise Public School and it was not shown that the Trust was concerned with the said school. In some of the documents, the permission granted by the Education Officer was in respect of Satyavati English Primary School which again did not have any connection with the Trust. The trial Court without verifying the relevant documents proceeded to hold that the Trust was entitled to receive possession of the premises in question. It was submitted that the petitioner no.1-Corporation was in possession since last forty years and its eviction would result in greater hardship. By referring to the rejoinder sought to be placed on record, it was submitted that all trustees the were not impleaded as plaintiffs in the suit. Moreover, the resolution dated 30.09.2009 was not signed by all the trustees on the basis of which the suit had been filed. The learned counsel placed the reliance on the decision in Atmaram Rachhodbhai Versus Gulamhusein Gulam Mohiyaddin & Others [AIR 1973 Guj.113] to submit that in absence of all trustees being parties, the suit was not liable to be entertained. Reference was also made to Exhibit 18 to indicate dispute with regard to the affairs of the Trust. It was thus submitted that the decree for eviction as passed was liable to be set aside.;