Bombay High Court
Ramchandra Dagoji Rangari (Dead) Thru. ... vs Vishwanath Champat Naik & Anor on 4 January, 2016
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: B.R. Gavai, P.N. Deshmukh
1 lpa268-07.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 268 OF 2007
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1851 OF 1995 (D)
Ramchandra s/o Dagoji Rangari
(dead) through his legal heirs
(I) Smt. Lilabai Ramchandra Rangari,
Aged about 69 years,
(ii) Sau. Pratibha Shamrao Ghodeswar,
aged about 47 years,
r/o Nandgaon Khandeshwar,
Tq. Nandgaon Khandeshwar,
District Amravati.
(iii) Naresh Ramchandra Rangari,
aged about 44 years, Occu. Service,
r/o Chandur Bazar, Distt. Amravati.
(iv) Prashant Ramchandra Rangari,
Aged about 40 years, Occu. Service,
(v) Dnyaneshwar Ramchandra Rangari,
aged about 33 years, Occu. Service,
(vi) Sau. Rajni Deepakrao Gajbhiye,
aged 33 years, Occ. Household work,
r/o Ganpati Nagar, Amravati.
(vii) Kishore Ramchandra Rangari,
Aged 30 years, Occ. Business,
r/o Subnis Plot, Amravati.
Nos. (i) (iv) (v) & (vii)
resident of Sabnis Plot, Amravati,
Tq. Dist. Amravati. ... ... Petitioners.
-Versus.-
1. Vishwanath Champat Naik,
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:42:17 :::
2 lpa268-07.odt
Aged 55 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Talvel, Chandur Bazar,
Dist. Amravati.
2. Additional Collector, Amravati. ... ... Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri J.T. Gilda, counsel for appellant.
Shri Ghodeswar, AGP for respondent no. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND P.N. DESHMUKH
, JJ.
DATED : 4
JANUARY, 2016
th
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.)
The appellants challenge the concurrent orders passed by the learned Rent Controller, granting permission to the respondent landlord to terminate the tenancy under clause 13 (3) (iii) and (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses & Rent Control Order 1949 (for short the said Order), the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal and the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellants.
2. The respondent landlord had filed an application under clause 13(3) (ii) & (vi) of the said Order stating therein that the respondent landlord has six daughters and a son and they are taking education and studying in schools and colleges located at Amravati and as such he required the premises for his bonafide need. The Rent Controller vide order dated 31.1.1985 granted permission to the respondent landlord. Challenging the same, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:42:17 ::: 3 lpa268-07.odt Authority allowed the appeal vide order dated 13.4.1987. The respondent landlord filed a writ petition in this court being W.P. No.1513/1987 which was decided on 27.1.1994. Vide the said order, this court upheld the order passed by the Appellate Authority refusing to grant permission under clause 13(3)(ii), however set aside the order under clause 13(3)(vi) and remitted the matter to the appellate authority to hear the matter afresh.
After remand, both the parties filed their affidavits in support of the subsequent developments. On the basis of the contentions raised before him, the learned Appellate Authority vide the judgment and order dated 3.2.1995 granted permission under clause 13(3)(vi) of the said Order.
Being aggrieved thereby a petition was filed before this court. The said petition is dismissed on 4.5.2007. Being aggrieved thereby the present appeal is filed.
3. Heard Shri Gilda, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Shri Gilda submits that though subsequent developments were placed on record before the leaned Single Judge of this court by Civil Application No.2646/2007 with regard to the marriage of daughters of the landlord taking place and they residing with their husbands and that the portion of the suit property which was sold by the landlord, the same has not at all been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:42:17 ::: 4 lpa268-07.odt Mohd. Ismail Vs. Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar (2009) 10 SCC 193 arising out of the same C.P. & Berar Order submits that the subsequent developments taken place at any stage are required to be taken into consideration while considering as to whether the bonafide need exists or not.
4. No doubt, Shri Gilda is justified in relying on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Mohd. Ismail Vs. Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar (supra). All subsequent events are required to be taken into consideration while considering as to whether the bonafide need exists or not. However, that does not mean that the subsequent developments brought on record by the tenant are only required to be taken into consideration and that the subsequent developments brought on record by the landlord are required to be ignored while considering as to whether the bonafide need exists or not.
5. The leaned Single Judge has considered all the subsequent developments since the year 2007. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration that the landlord does not own any house except the suit property at Amravati. The learned Single Judge has also considered that the grand son of the landlord namely Sumit is studying in 8th standard in St. Francies High School at Amravati and the other grand son Prajwal is studying in the same school. The learned Single Judge has also considered that the wife of the landlord namely Pushpa and unmarried daughter ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:42:17 ::: 5 lpa268-07.odt Shobhana are residing in a rented house and looking after the grand children.
6. The learned Single Judge has also found that on an affidavit the landlord has specifically stated that the appellant tenant has left the suit premises and was residing with his son Narendra who constructed a new house at Kalyan Nagar. The learned Single Judge further found that the tenant has not even chosen to cross-examine the landlord on his affidavit which was filed by way of evidence.
7. The contention of Shri Gilda that the subsequent developments are not at all taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge is totally without substance. The perusal of paragraph 7 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge would reveal that all the contentions as raised by the tenant in civil application are considered by the learned Single Judge and found to be without merit.
8. We do not find any perversity in the concurrent orders passed by both the authorities as well as the learned Single Judge. Here is a case wherein landlord from 1983 is knocking the doors of the Courts for getting possession of the premises owned by him for bonafide need of housing his daughters and son initially who were taking education at the relevant time. A period of 33 years has lapsed therefrom. The respondent landlord is still residing in a tenanted premises, may be not for the purpose of educating his ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:42:17 ::: 6 lpa268-07.odt daughters and son but now for the purpose of educating his grand sons and on the other hand the tenant has kept the suit premises locked and enjoying the residence in a newly constructed house of his son.
9. We, therefore, find that the letters patent appeal is without any merit and as such is dismissed.
JUDGE
ig JUDGE
Hirekhan
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:42:17 :::