R.G. Ketkar JUDGMENT
R.G. Ketkar, J.
1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent at length.
2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, hereinafter referred to as "defendants' have challenged the judgment and decree dated 20th December, 1997 passed by the learned IV Extra Joint District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 882 of 1995. By that order, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent, hereinafter after referred to as 'plaintiff' and set aside the judgment and decree dated 11th August, 1995 passed by the learned II Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune in Regular Civil Suit No. 1186 of 1990. The learned District Judge decreed the suit and directed the defendants to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of two rooms admeasuring 18'x39' square meters in Amirchand Chawl situate at C.S. No. 24A, Bopodi, more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The relevant and material facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Petition, briefly stated, are as under.
3. The plaintiff instituted suit against the defendants for recovery of possession, inter alia, alleging that defendant No. 1 remained in arrears of rent and other charges from 1st June, 1980. The plaintiff issued demand notice terminating tenancy of defendant No. 1 and called upon defendant No. 1 to comply with the demands made therein. Defendant No. 1 gave reply on 29th January, 1989 and denied the contents of the notice. On 11th September, 1990, the plaintiff instituted the suit alleging that defendant No. 1 is a defaulter; defendant No. 1 had sublet the suit premises to defendants No. 2 and 3; defendant No. 1 has made permanent construction (ota) in front of the suit premises; defendant No. 1 has been causing nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiff and other occupiers and that the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably and bona fide. The plaintiff had thus instituted the suit invoking grounds under section 12, 13 (1) (e), 13 (1) (b), 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'Act'), The defendant filed written statement at Exhibit 11 and resisted the suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the necessary issues. By order dated 11th August, 1995, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by that decision, the plaintiff preferred appeal. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal.
4. In support of this Petition, Mr. Joshi submitted that the learned District Judge decreed the suit only on the ground of unlawful subletting. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiff proved that defendant No. 1 had unlawfully sublet the suit premises to defendants No. 2 and 3. The learned District Judge decreed the suit only under section 13 (1) (e) of the Act and declined to pass decree on other grounds. He submitted that the learned District Judge did not appreciate the ingredients to prove unlawful subletting. Mr. Joshi relied on the decision of Nirmal Kanta Vs. Ashok Kumar, MANU/SC/7383/2008 : (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 722 and in particular paragraph 16 thereof. In paragraph 16, the Apex Court observed that a sub-tenancy or a subletting comes into e........