Dnyaneshwar Marutrao Bartakke (Decd.) by Heirs. v. Rajesh Chandrakant Thakar and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Mar 2005WP/3411/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects a writ petition filed by heirs of a deceased tenant challenging an eviction decree passed in a suit instituted by the landlord. The court held that the decree was based on unassailable findings regarding the landlord's reasonable requirement and lack of evidence that petitioners had a substantive interest or were conducting business in the premises.

What did the court decide?

The petition is rejected. Ad-interim relief of possession is extended for eight weeks pending appeal in the Supreme Court.

Dnyaneshwar Marutrao Bartakke (Decd.) by Heirs. Vs Rajesh… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3411 OF 2004

¶5

Dnyaneshwar Marutrao Bartakke (since deceased through his L.Rs.) 1a) Umadevi D. Bartakke & Ors.

¶6

... Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Shri Rajesh Chandrakant Thakar & Another. ... Respondents

¶9

Mr. P.S. Dani for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. V.G. Mujumdar for respondent 1.

¶11

CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.

¶12

DATED: 29TH MARCH, 2005.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

1.	The petitioners are th	e	heirs of	Dnyan	eshwar	Marutrao
Bartakke,	the original ten	an	t. Petitioner	1(a	) is	the
mother	and petitioners 1(b) and		1(c) are the	son	s of	the
original	tenant. Responde	nt	1 is	t	he	landlord.
Responden	t 2 is the defenda	nt.	He is	the t	hird so	n of
the	deceased tenant. Res	po	ndent 1 filed	a	sui	t for
eviction	on the ground of		change of	user,	carrying	out
permanent	alteration in th	e	suit premises	and	on	the
ground	of bonafide and		reasonable requi	rement	of	the
landlord.	The trial court	d	ecreed the su	it on	ly on	the
ground	of bonafide and		reasonable requi	rement	of	the
landlord.	The lower ap	pe	llate cour	t	confirmed	the
decree.	The petitioners we	re	not parties	to	the	suit or
the	appeal. But they	cl	aim to be	aggriev	ed b	y the

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

impugned judgment and decree as heirs of the deceased tenant and, hence, they have approached this court. By a

¶17

detailed order, the writ petition filed by respondent 2

¶18

is rejected by me, today.

¶19

2.	In this pe	tition, the grievance of the petitioners is
that	they ought	to have been impleaded as party
defendants	in the	suit. The decree has been passed on
the	ground of	bonafide and reasonable requirement of the
landlord.	The	evidence clearly indicates that, at the
time	of death o	f the original tenant, respondent 2 - Dr.
Girish	Dnayneshwar	Bartakke was running a dispensary in
the	suit premise	s and, as such, in the suit, after the
death	of the ori	ginal tenant, he was impleaded as party
defendant.	Defend	ant Dr. Girish Dnayneshwar Bartakke
has	stated that	though the suit premises stood in the
name	of his mothe	r, he was paying the rent. There is no
evidence	to show	that petitioners 1(b) and 1(c) were
residing	with the	deceased original tenant at the time of
his de	ath or carryin	g on business in the suit premises at
the	time of his	death. If at all, they had any interest
in th	e suit prem	ises, nothing prevented them from leading
their	evidence in	the suit. At one stage, it was
suggested	that the	mother would be put to hardship
because	she is ca	rrying on business in the suit premises.
However,	it has	come on record that the mother is not
carrying	on busines	s in the suit premises. In fact, the
defendant	- Dr.	Girish D. Bartakke has himself stated
that	the mother	is selling milk at Sonya Maruti Chowk.

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

From	this	inc	onsistency,	it is	evident t	hat	this is	an
attempt	on	the	part	of the	petitioners	to	defeat	the
decree.	There		is no	substance	in the		petition.	The
findings	of	fact	recorded	by the	courts	b	elow as	regards
bonafide	and		reasonable	requiremen	t of	the	landlord	is

¶22

unassailable. No interference is called for. Hence,

¶23

petition is rejected.

¶24

3. At	this	sta	ge, Mr.		Da	ni, the	learned		counse	l	for the
petitioners		states	that	t	he	a	d-interim		relie	f	be
continued	for		eight	weeks		as the	petition	ers		want	to
challenge	this	ju	dgment	in		the	Supreme		Court	.	The
learned	counsel		for	the	re	spondents	objects.			In	the
circumstances		of	the	case	,	ad-interi	m re	lief	is		extended
for a	period	of	eight	weeks		from	today	on	the		petitioners
and al	l	adult	me	mbers	of	their	families		filin	g	usual
undertakings	in	this	court	wit	hin	a	period	of	t	hree	weeks
that in	the	ev	ent they	are		unable	to get		any		favourable
order,	on	the	expiry	of	eight	weeks	, they		will	han	d over

¶25

peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to

¶26

respondent 1.

¶27

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of

¶28

this order.

¶29

(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

Dnyaneshwar Marutrao Bartakke (Decd.) by Heirs. v. Rajesh Chandrakant Thakar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyaneshwar Marutrao Bartakke (Decd.) by Heirs. v. Rajesh Chandrakant Thakar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanmant Narayan Mane (Decd.)by Lrs. Vs Krushnaji Gundo Tahasildar (Decd.) by Lrs.

Hanmant Narayan Mane (Decd.)by Lrs. Vs Krushnaji Gundo Tahasildar (Decd.) by Lrs.

Zarina Shaikh Abdul Rashid Vs Aziz Hyder Ali Talwaria and Ors.

Bodhraj Maruti Lungase and Ors. Vs Chimabai Arjun Dhumal and Ors.

Dnyaneshwar Marutrao Bartakke (Desd) Lrs. Vs Rajesh Chadnrakant Thakar

Bodhraj Maruti Lungase and Ors. Vs Chimabai Arjun Dhumal and Ors.