Allowed

Vijay Anant Bhujbal. v. Shankar Tukaram Hagawane and Others.

Bombay HC7 May 2012WP/388/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed over 20 years after the initial eviction suit, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad allowed the landlord's remedy. The Court quashed the First Appellate Court order having set aside the eviction decree due to lack of reconstruction evidence. An undertaking by the landlord to build and reconvey premises upon completion, accepted by tenants, formed the basis for disposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order dated 12.12.1990 passed by the First Appellate Court is quashed and set aside. The parties are directed to perform their respective undertakings regarding possession an

Vijay Anant Bhujbal. Vs Shankar Tukaram Hagawane and… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp38892.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.388 OF 1992

¶5

Vijay Anant Bhujbal, age: 36 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Padhegaon, Tq. Srirampur, District Ahmednagar. Petitioner Versus

¶6

1 Shankar Tukaram Hagawane, deceased, his legal heir One Smt.Seetabai Shankar Hagawane, age: 75 years, Occ: Labourer; 2 Smt.Sakarbai Shankar Hagawane, age: 43 years, Occ: Household; 3 Smt.Leelabai Shankar Hagawane, age: 40 years, Occ: Household; 4 Deochand Shankar Hagawane, age: 48 years, Occ: Labourer; 5 Baban Shankar Hagawane, age: 38 years, Occ: Labourer; 6 Bhaurao Shankar Hagawane, age: 28 years, Occ: Labourer, All residing at Srirampur, Taluka Srirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar. 7 Padma w/o Bhivsen Hagwane, age: 53 years, Occ: Household, R/o Shrirampur, Tq.Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar (Near K.J.Somayya Hospital Ward No.3, Shrirampur). Respondents

¶7

{2} wp38892.odt

¶8

Mr.G.G.Deshpande and D.R.Markad, advocates for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3, 5 & 7. Respondent No.4 served.

¶9

CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 07th May, 2012.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶11

1 The petitioner landlord is taking exception to the order dated 12.12.1990, passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.283/1986, reversing the judgment and decree dated 09.06.1986, passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrirampur in Regular Civil Suit No.9/1983.

¶12

2 The petitioner is landlord whereas Respondents are tenants in respect of premises admeasuring an area of 160 square feet out of plot no.993, situate at Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. It is alleged that Respondents are in occupation of structure consisting constructed area of 160 square feet. The constructed area was let out to Respondenttenants on monthly rent of Rs.3/-. The tenancy was monthly tenancy and rent was required to be paid every month. It is the contention of landlord that the premises are required for raising construction of building and as such, suit came to be presented seeking recovery of possession of tenanted premises, as provided by Section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.

¶13

3 Defendants-tenants caused their appearance and resisted the suit by filing written statement. Defendants have denied all the

¶14

{3}

¶15

wp38892.odt

¶16

contentions raised in the plaint and have contended that the landlord, in fact, does not require the premises for reconstruction. The landlord has not secured permission for construction and has not made any preparation for construction of the building nor the landlord possesses requisite funds for constructing the building.

¶17

4 The trial Court, after considering rival contentions put forth by respective parties, was pleased to grant decree in favour of the plaintiff-landlord. The trial Court directed defendants to deliver vacant possession of suit premises to the plaintiff within three months from the date of the order.

¶18

5 The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was subjected to appeal which came to be heard and disposed of by 2nd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, who was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court considered the case put forth by the landlord to be under Section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rent Act and recorded a finding that the landlord has not putforth necessary evidence in respect of securing permission for reconstruction as well as availability of funds for carrying out reconstruction.

¶19

6 The petitioner-landlord has placed on record an undertaking and has expressed willingness to hand over constructed area of 160 square feet to the Respondents-tenants after construction of the building. The landlord has also undertaken to complete the construction expeditiously and after completion of the construction, undertakes to issue notice to the tenant for occupation of the premises.

¶20

{4}

¶21

wp38892.odt

¶22

The landlord has specifically stated in the undertaking that after securing completion certificate from Municipal Council, he would immediately put the tenants in possession of constructed area of 160 square feet in the newly constructed building.

¶23

7 The undertaking placed on record by the petitioner-landlord is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. The terms and conditions stated in the undertaking are acceptable to the Respondentstenants. The tenants, however, state that they be provided constructed premises of 160 square feet plus a toilet block. The request made by the tenants is acceptable to the landlord and it has been specifically stated that the tenants would be put in possession over constructed area of 160 square feet plus a toilet block. The purshis presented by the Respondents-tenants accepting the offer made by landlord in the form of an undertaking is taken on record and marked “Y” for identification.

¶24

8 The tenants undertake to vacate the suit premises and to hand over vacant possession to the landlord within a period of two months from today. After securing possession of the plot, landlordpetitioner herein shall proceed to carry on construction activity and after completion of the construction, shall hand over constructed area of 160 square feet along with toilet block to the Respondent-tenants, as undertaken. It is assured by the petitioner-landlord that he would complete construction of the building as far as possible within two years from today.

¶25

8 In view of the understanding reached between the parties, petition deserves to be allowed. The judgment and order dated

¶26

wp38892.odt

¶27

{5}

¶28

12.12.1990, passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.283/1986, is quashed and set aside.

¶29

9 Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

R.M.BORDE JUDGE

¶31

adb/wp38892

Vijay Anant Bhujbal. v. Shankar Tukaram Hagawane and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Anant Bhujbal. v. Shankar Tukaram Hagawane and Others.

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

Dhananjay Gopinathrao Choudhary. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Ramkrishna Pandu Patil. Vs Kalabai @ Kamalabai Sadashiv Bharambe.

Ratilal Ramadas Patil. Vs M.S.R.T.C.,Dhule.

Kiran Narhari Wattamwar and Anr. Vs the Collector, Nanded and Ors.

Sharad Namdeo Pawar and Anr. Vs the Collector and Ors.

Deorao @ Deva Bajirao Shende Vs the State of Mah