SURESH BHAVANISHANKAR PEJAWAR Vs. HITEX EMBROIDERY PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-plaintiff has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the proceedings of the Courts below as the case, as contemplated under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging house Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short "the Bombay Rent Act") was dismissed by the Appellate Court i. e. The Small Causes Court at Bombay. Therefore, the present Writ Petition.

(2.) Heard Mr. Chetan Agarwal, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajesh patil, counsel for the respondent. The main submission raised in the present Writ petition is based on the Additional Affidavit filed on record which is dated 16th july, 2005, the averments wherein are as follows :

(3.) Further, there is a Certificate placed on the record to demonstrate that mrs. Sucheta Suresh Pejawar is staying at Anandadham (senior citizen home) , jambulpada, Tal. Sudhagad, District Raigad, from 16th December, 1997. The certificate is dated 25th June, 2005. The material to support ill health and the medical treatment which is going on is also part of the record. The respondent, by an Affidavit-in-Reply dated 9th August, 2005, resisted the same and insisted for strict proof of the averments made in the Affidavit. It means that there is no acceptance of the case as sought to be raised by the petitioners-landlord. It further means that there is a disputed question of facts which are raised by this Reply, apart from merit. This, according to me, goes to the root of the matter, specially when it is a case of relevant and material subsequent events which are required to be considered while deciding the issue of default by the tenant and the bona fide need of the landlord.