Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ashok Chandrakant Palande vs State Of Maharashtra . on 11 November, 2014
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R. Banumathi
1
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.2 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4222/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/12/2012
in WP No. 997/2012 passed by the High Court Of Bombay)
ASHOK CHANDRAKANT PALANDE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with interim relief and office report)
Date : 11/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Babu Marlepalle, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R.V.Govilkar, Adv.
Mr. Nitin S.Tambwekar, Adv.
Mr. B.S.Rai, Adv.
Mr. K. Rajeev,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Arun R.Pednekar, Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv.
Mr. Amar Dave, Adv.
Ms. Nandini Gore, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Roy, Adv.
M/s. Karanjawala & Co.,Adv.
Signature Not Verified
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Digitally signed by
O R D E R
Shashi Sareen Date: 2014.11.12 11:01:10 ALMT Reason:
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. It is common ground that although the 2 petitioner has retired from service as early as on 30.11.2006 the residential accommodation allotted to him has continued in his occupation all these years. The High Court has while dismissing the writ petition taken the view that the provisions of Section 15B of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Act, 1947 and Section 27 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act do not protect the petitioner's possession or confer upon him the status of a statutory tenant. We do not see any compelling reason for us to interfere with that finding especially when the petitioner has enjoyed the possession of the premises for over 10 years after his retirement on payment of rent which is very meager. It is not disputed that the landlord-owner of the premises was in any case entitled to seek eviction of the appellant on the ground that the later had retired.
In the totality of the above circumstances we do not consider the present to be a fit case for our intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This SLP accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.
At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner 3 submits that the petitioner being a pensioner with limited resources could be granted some time to vacate the premises. He prayed for a minimum of two years' to do so. That prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the respondents who submits that the petitioner has neither paid the arrears of rent nor the electricity charges for the energy consumed by him. It is also submitted that the market rental of the premises is in the neighbourhood of Rs. 5,000/- p.m.. In the circumstances therefore we grant to the petitioner time till 31.05.2015 to vacate and handover possession to the landlord subject to the following conditions:
1) Petitioner deposits/pays to the respondent-landlord the entire arrears of rent due to him at the contracted rate .
2) Petitioner clears all the dues towards electricity charges for the energy consumed by him.
3) Petitioner pays to the landlord compensation for use and occupation of the premises @ Rs. 2,000/- p.m. Failure to abide by any one of these conditions shall render the eviction order executable forthwith.
(Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera)
Court Master Court Master