Balkrishna Laxman Dhumal vs Vishwanath Shivlingappa Patil ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6377 Bom

Mhi                                   1        WP-2271-2002.sxw


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                              
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 2271 OF 2002




                                                      
      Balkrishna laxman Dhumal, (since deceased)
      through his legal heirs and representatives:




                                                     
      1(a) Vijay Balkrishna Dhumal                )
           Age 53 years, Occ: Ex-serviceman       )

      1(b) Sunil Balkrishna Dhumal                )
           Age: 50 years, Occ: Shopkeeper.        )




                                         
      1(c) Jayant Balkrishna Dhumal
                                 ig               )
           Age: 45 years, Occ:Ex-serviceman       )
      1(d) Lalita Ajay Dhumal                     )
                               
           Age: 30 years, Occ: Household          )
           All resident of 71, Patil Chawl,       )
           Murarji Peth, Solapur.                 )        ..       Petitioner
                        vs.
        


      1.     Shri Vishwanath Shivlingappa Patil   )
             Age 48 years, Occup: Service,        )
     



             R/o 11, Suyog Co-operative Colony,   )
             84, Railway Lines, Solapur.          )
      2.     Baburao Naganath Kadam, Dead         )





             through his heirs :-
      a)     Smt. Rukminibai Baburao Kadam        )

      b)     Blasaheb Baburao Kadam.. (Abated) )





      c)     Sou. Vimal Hanmantrao Shinde (dismissed)

      d)     Sou. Kamal Pralhad Hajare (dismissed)) ...               Respondents

      Mr.Viresh V.Purwant,Advocate for the petitioner.
      Mr. T.D.Deshmukh, for Respondent No.1.
      Petitioner present in Court.




       ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016                   ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:52:54 :::
 Mhi                                   2             WP-2271-2002.sxw


                                          CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J.

DATE : 26th October, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT:.

1. Heard Mr. Purwant, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.

T.D.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondents at length.

2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as "the defendant", has challenged the

judgment and decree dated 31.3.1997 passed by the learned IIIrd Joint Civil

Judge, Junior Division, Solapur in Regular Civil Suit No.1128 of 1992 as

also the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2001 passed by the learned IInd

Addl. Sessions District Judge, Solapur in Regular Civil Appeal No.257 of

1997. By these orders, the Courts below decreed the suit instituted by

respondent No.1, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" under Section

13(1)(g) of Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act,

1947 (for short, "the Act"). The Courts below directed the defendants to

hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the five rooms situate in

Municipal House No.71/B, more particularly described in paragraph 2 of

the plaint. After arguing the Petition for quite some time, Mr. Purwant,

upon taking instruction from the petitioner, who is present in the Court,

states that he will not press this petition if six months time is given for

Mhi 3 WP-2271-2002.sxw

vacating the suit premises. He has tendered a photocopy of the I-Card,

which is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Mr. Deshmukh

has no objection and submits that the petitioner and all other adult family

members residing in the suit premises be directed to file undertaking

incorporating therein :

(i) that they are in actual possession of the suit premises and nobody else

is in possession;

(ii) that they have so far neither created third party interest nor parted

with the possession of the suit premises;

(iii) that they will hereafter neither create third party interest nor part with

the possession of the suit premises;

(iv) that they will pay the arrears of compensation, if any, to the

defendants inclusive of six months period within four weeks from today.

(v) that they will hand over possession of the suit premises to the

respondent on 30.04.2017.

3. In view thereof, the Petition is disposed of as not pressed in the

following terms :-

      (i)     The impugned orders are upheld.





 Mhi                                    4            WP-2271-2002.sxw

      (ii)    The tenancy of the petitioner stands terminated.

(iii) Notwithstanding the disposal of the Petition as not pressed, subject

to the petitioner and all adult family members residing in the said premises

giving an undertaking in the aforesaid terms, with advance copy to the other

side on or before 18.11.2016, the eviction decree shall not be executed on

or before 30.04.2017.

4. Rule is discharged. In the facts of the case, there shall be no

order as to costs.

5.

Place the Petition for reporting compliance on 25.11.2016.

(R.G.KETKAR, J.)