The appeal is by the defendants against whom Courts below have passed decree for possession in a suit for possession based on title filed by the plaintiffs.

¶25

The respondents are the original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.11 of 2004 seeking possession of suit property based on title. According to the plaintiffs, their predecessor purchased the suit property and became owner of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants are in possession of suit property on monthly rent of Rs.35/- and since the defendants failed to pay the amount of rent they issued notice on 15^th May 2003 terminating defendants’ tenancy and filed suit for possession.

¶26

The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and contended that they are yearly tenant in the suit property. In absence of six months’ notice to determine tenancy, the suit is not maintainable. According to them, the suit property used for manufacturing purpose (floor mill).

¶27

The Trial Court based on the pleadings framed issue of title casting burden on the plaintiffs to prove ownership of suit property. The Trial Court also framed the issue of valid termination of tenancy.

¶28

The Courts below based on admission of the defendants that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiffs have proved title over the suit property. Once the plaintiffs prove their title over the suit property, it is for the defendants to prove that the defendants are either statutorily

¶29

¶30

8-sa566-2022.doc

¶31

or contractually entitled to continue with the possession of suit premises. In the facts of the present case, the suit premises is not governed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. There is no other contract which entitle the defendants to continue with the possession of suit premises. Therefore, once the Courts below record a finding that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property, the defendants need to deliver possession of suit property. In so far as the contention regarding valid termination of notice is concerned, the Courts below have recorded a finding that in absence of registered document creating yearly tenancy, the defendants are not entitled to claim lease for a period of year or more. Therefore, in my opinion, the decree for possession based on title cannot be faulted. There is no substantial question of law involved.

¶32

The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

¶33

In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, the interim application does not survive and the same stands disposed of.

¶34

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶35

Anil Laxman Kadam (D/H) Adesh Anil Kadam and Ors. v. Ganpat Chima Bhosale (D/H) Arun Ganpat Bhosale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Anil Laxman Kadam (D/H) Adesh Anil Kadam and Ors. v. Ganpat Chima Bhosale (D/H) Arun Ganpat Bhosale and Ors.

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

Ramchandra Panduran Lawand and Ors. Vs Sambhaji Tukaram Jadhav

Shivaji Dattatray Bhandgire and Ors. Vs Sarjerao Ishwar Kanade and Ors.

Jibhau Vithoba Deore and Ors. Vs Nanaji Motiram Deore (Dead) and Ors.

Mr. Dattatraya Baburao Giri and Anr. Vs Sunanda Satyavan Ban and Ors.

Shri Keshav Devram Tatane and Others Two Vs Baburao Nandram Shinde Deceased through L R S Balkrushna Baburao Shinde

Sandesh Ashok Gundecha and Ors. Vs Satish Shrimant Aargade and Ors.