Writ petition filed by landlord seeking to quash judgments refusing decree for possession and arrears. Court held petition against concurrent findings of fact and dismissed it, noting construction was done per municipal policy for latrine upgrade at tenant's request.
Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2031.01wp
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2031 OF 2001
Shankar Manohar Thakur, now deceased through his legal heirs:
Smt. Shashikala Shankar Thakur, Age: 66 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Tofkhana, Ahmednagar District Ahmednagar and others.
...Petitioners
versus
Krushna Shankarrao Lahore since deceased per L.Rs.
Rukhamanabai Krushna Lahore, Age: 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 779/80, Topkhana, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar and others.
...Respondents
Mr. K.N. Lokhande, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.C. Barhate, Advocate for respondent (Absent).
CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE ,J.
DATED : 17TH JULY, 2014
ORAL ORDER :
. This petition is by landlord questioning the judgment dated 31/10/1988 in Regular Civil Suit No. 110 of 1984 passed by 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Ahmednagar and judgment dated 26/04/1999 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 602 of 1990 passed by Extra
2031.01wp
-2-
Joint District Judge, Ahmednagar.
2031.01wp
-3-
of this Court to the fact that both the Courts below have considered issue about carrying out permanent construction by tenantrespondent, however, decree for possession based on that is refused. He submits that once it is established that there is permanent construction carried out by tenant without permission of landlord, it must be followed with decree of possession in favour of landlord.
the Courts below have reached to incorrect conclusion on the aspect of arrears of rent and he is entitled for recovery of arrears.
is noticed that petition is preferred against concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below.
should have been decree of possession based on finding that there
2031.01wp -4-
is permanent construction, if tested in the light of evidence brought on record by tenant, it reflects that there are 12 tenants alongwith present respondent in the property of present petitioner. It appears that at the relevant time, it was policy of Municipal Council to discontinue manually scavenge latrines/toilets with that of new one. It appears that respondent-tenant has requested to present petitioner to carry out change, however, petitioner has not adhered to said request which prompted the respondent and other tenants to pay appropriate amount to Municipal Council and carry out change in the latrine. As such, both Courts have held that nature of change (alleged permanent construction) carried out is as per policy of Municipal Council cannot be attributed to respondent for the purpose of seeking possession of tenanted property.
N.W. SAMBRE, J. ]
Tupe/ 17.07.14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should have interfered in the concurrent findings of fact refusing the landlord's claim for possession based on unauthorized permanent construction by the tenant.
Whether the landlord's claim for arrears of rent was correctly decided by the lower courts which found no dispute regarding the relationship.
Whether construction carried out by tenant pursuant to Municipal Council policy for latrine renovation constitutes unauthorized permanent construction warranting eviction.
Shankar Manohar Thakur (deceased through legal heirs)
Krushna Shankarrao Lahore (since deceased per L.Rs.)
N.W. SAMBRE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
