Anil v. Sau. Sindhubai

The interse relations as the plaintiff (Respondent in CRA) to be owner of the suit premises and the petitioner/tenant occupying the same on a monthly charges of Rs.700 since 2000, is not questioned. 2 4) The landlord came with a case, that the tenant has not paid the license fee in spite of communication and was in arrears, she needed the premises bonafidely for her personal use and occupation. 5) The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, on evaluation of the evidence as stated above, found that the plaintiff/landlord was in need of the suit premises for reasonable bonafide personal occupation. She feel that it was licensee and the monthly charges to be recovered as license fee. However, the learned Judge observed that the tenant (Petitioner) is in arrears of monthly charges for the period from December, 2000 to August 2005, amounting to Rs. 57,215/-. 6) Mr.Deshpande, learned Counsel for petitioner, criticized both the judgments by pointing, the courts are swayed with the status of the landlord and tenant when case of the respondent, is accelerated as of licensee.

He submits in the light of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the proceedings would not be maintainable before the said Court. According to him, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant is a licensee and the plaintiff is dominus litis, failure to do so was not enough for passing of decree for eviction. On the basis of defendant’s admission 3 relief cannot be granted. He read the provisions of Section 40 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, which refers to appointment of a Competent Authority and also Section 41, which deals with definition of `landlord’ for the purpose of Chapter VIII. 7) The nomenclature `licensee’ has been indicated in Section 7 sub-section (5) and `tenant’ is defined in sub-clause (15) thereof. Even if the landlord has branded the petitioner/tenant as a licensee, however, from the stand, that has been taken and having admitted liability to pay the monthly charges, erroneous nomenclature will not be taking away effect of the eviction proceedings.

8) There was no written agreement between the parties, which was basically required in terms of section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and in the absence of such, the contentions of the tenant, about terms and conditions, subject to which, premises have been given to him by the landlord, shall prevail unless proved otherwise. Hence, there was no error on the part of the learned Judge that contention of the defendant to be a tenant should be accepted and there is no escape from this proposition, is a correct finding. This position is also clear from effect of principles of estoppel and also Section 58 of the Evidence Act. 4 9) The second point, that has been agitated is, the learned District Judge did not record coherent finding while answering the Point Nos.5 to 8 in his judgment, as there is no scrutiny of evidence by the learned District Judge. There is no quarrel, the learned District Judge is also a fact finding court.

10) The observations of the court of first instance and of the learned District Judge elaborately discussed the nature of controversy; requirement of the landlord to occupy the premises in question. The Court of first instance, while answering the Issue No.4, has pondered upon the same. The learned Judge found that the landlady is old including her husband, she was accompanied with her grand child. During the court proceedings, though she has stated that there are 10 family members, however, it did not appear in her evidence. But, the learned Judge found, it was convenient for the landlord and her husband that other family members to occupy the premises on ground floor. The demand, according to the learned Judge, is justified. The learned Judge had occasion to examine demenour of the witnesses and this Court need not criticize the same. 11) The observation of the learned District Judge in para 10 of the judgment is in tune with the observations of the learned Court of first 5 instance and it cannot be said that there is no elaborate discussion to the evidence or lacking scrutiny.

12) Taking survey of these aspects, I do not see any error in the observations of both the courts on facts and status of the petitioner to be a tenant. Consequently, CRA is not projecting any perversity or illegality in the order, lacks merit, dismissed. 13) The petitioner/tenant to vacate the suit premises up to 30th April, 2011 by making regular payments and furnish an undertaking within fifteen days to this Court not to create third party interest or not to part with the possession of the premises in favour of any other person. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/