Dismissed

Panshilla Electric Company v. Jessie Louis Castellino

Bombay HC12 Apr 2006WP/1251/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as the courts below properly appreciated evidence of discontinued tenancy under Section 13(1)(k). Execution of the eviction decree was stayed until March 31, 2007, pending an undertaking from the tenant.

What did the court decide?

Execution of the decree for possession stayed until March 31, 2007, subject to undertaking by petitioner to vacate and pay rent.

Panshilla Electric Company Vs Jessie Louis Castellino — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1251 OF 2006

¶5

 Panshilla Electric Company

¶6

 through its Proprietor Shri

¶7

 Banwarilal Bhakshiram Diwan .. ..Petitioner
 Versus

¶8

 Mrs.Jessie Louis Castellino .. ..Respondent

¶9

 Mr.G.S.Godbole for petitioner

¶10

 Mr.K.Y.Mandlik for respondent

¶11

 CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.

¶12

 DATE : 12TH APRIL 2006

¶13

 P.C.:

¶14

 1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶15

 Perused the record.

¶16

 2. The petitioner has preferred this petition against
 the judgment and order passed by Addl. District Judge,

¶17

 : 2 :

¶18

 Pune dated 27.10.2005 dismissing the appeal and confirming
 the judgment and order passed by Trial Court dated
 21.3.2005 by Small Causes Court Judge, Pune decreeing the
 plaintiff’s suit for vacant possession of the suit
 premises on the ground that the plaintiff has succeeded in
 establishing that the premises have not used without
 reasonable cause for the purpose for which it was let out
 for the continuous period of six months immediately
 preceding the date of the suit.

¶19

 3. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging that the
 ground floor premises in House No.328 Sachapir Street,
 Pune Cantonment, Pune with three immovable partitions had
 been let out to the petitioner-defendant for his own use
 as well as carrying on business by agreement dated
 28.1.1963 and it was renewed from time to time upto the
 year 1973. According to the respondent-plaintiff, the
 suit premises is not used by the petitioner-defendant for
 continuous period of more than six months immediately
 preceding the suit without reasonable cause and therefore,
 he was liable to vacate the suit premises by virtue of
 Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act. The suit came to
 be filed in July 1998. It was contended by the defendant,
 inter alia, denying the allegations made by the plaintiff

¶20

 : 3 :

¶21

 with submission that the suit premises was under use and
 occupation of the defendant for the purpose for which it
 was let out to him.

¶22

 4. The learned judge after hearing both the parties

¶23

 and on the basis of available evidence came to the
 conclusion that the plaintiff had succeeded in
 establishing the ground contemplated under Section
 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act and decreed the suit.

¶24

 . The appeal was preferred to the District Court,
 who after hearing both the parties concurred with the
 findings recorded by the trial judge and dismissed the
 appeal. Hence the present petition.

¶25

 5. At the outset, it may be noted that both the

¶26

 courts below appear to have appreciated the evidence on
 record in proper perspective and therefore, no perversity
 is found in the reasoning adopted by both the courts
 below. The trial court as well as the appellate court
 have relied upon the documentary evidence Exh.88
 pertaining to the use of electricity which showed that
 there was no use of electricity. The Trial Court also
 appears to have relied upon the evidence of as many as

¶27

 : 4 :

¶28

 three witnesses, who supported the fact that the defendant
 did not use the premises during the relevant period. Be
 as it may, the fact remains that the courts below have
 appreciated the evidence properly and therefore, it would
 brook no interference within the jurisdiction of this
 Court contemplated by Article 227 of the Constitution of
 India.

¶29

 6. In the result, the petition stands dismissed with
 no order as to costs.

¶30

 7 At this stage the learned counsel for the
 petitioner submitted that some time should be granted to
 the petitioner to vacate the suit premises. In view of
 the facts and circumstances, the decree for possession
 shall not be executed till the end of 31st March 2007 from
 the date of this order on condition that the petitioner
 and all adult members of his family shall furnish an
 Undertaking to that effect and further the petitioner
 shall not create any third party right in the suit
 premises and shall continue to pay the rent as agreed
 between the parties for the said period. The undertaking
 to be furnished within two weeks from the date of this
 order.

Panshilla Electric Company v. Jessie Louis Castellino

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panshilla Electric Company v. Jessie Louis Castellino

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kisan Son of Late Khubchand Deepchand Bhagnani Vs Nandkumar Ramakrishna Pednekar and Ors,.

Majorie Passanah and Others Vs Mumtaz I. Shaikh

Kanchandevi S.Jain Vs Gajanan Dattaram Deolekar and Anr.

The Indian Bank Vs Bharat Champaklal Lalwani and Anr.

Bhairam S.Singh and Ors. Vs Shivshankar Gokula Singh and Anr.

Bhaskar Yadavrao Pawar Vs Edward Zuran Koyalo