Bombay High Court
Shri Atmaram Bhikaji Shendre vs Laterao Bahadurdevineni ... on 17 November, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 24.WP.298-2018 & ORS JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 298 OF 2018
Shri Kishor S/o Narhri Patki
Aged about, 64 years, Occ. Cook,
R/o. H.No.555/0+12, at Mauza
Lendra, Near Tuli Hotel, Tuli Imperial,
Central Bazar Road, Nagpur. PETITIONER
...Versus...
Late Rao Bahadur Devineni
Laxmanswami Ashram (Hostel),
Nagpur, A public Trust Registered
under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950,
bearing registration No.E-954, Nagpur,
Through its Trustee
Mr. Anuj S/o Shantilal Badjate
Aged Adult, Occ. Business,
R/o. 3C/2, Shantiniketan,
Dharampeth Extention, Nagpur. RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 300 OF 2018
Shri Sanjay S/o Keshavrao Potdar,
Aged about 58 years, Occ. Private Job,
R/o. H.No.555/0+12, at Mauza
Lendra, Near Tuli Hotel, Tuli Imperial,
Central Bazar Road, Nagpur. PETITIONER
...Versus...
Late Rao Bahadur Devineni
Laxmanswami Ashram (Hostel),
Nagpur, A public Trust Registered
::: Uploaded on - 18/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2021 03:23:09 :::
2 24.WP.298-2018 & ORS JUDGMENT.odt
under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950,
bearing registration No.E-954, Nagpur,
Through its Trustee
Mr. Anuj S/o Shantilal Badjate
Aged Adult, Occ. Business,
R/o. 3C/2, Shantiniketan,
Dharampeth Extention, Nagpur. RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 301 OF 2018
Shri Atmaram Bhikaji Shendre
Aged 77 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. H.No.555/0+12, at Mauza
Lendra, Near Tuli Hotel, Tuli Imperial,
Central Bazar Road, Nagpur. PETITIONER
...Versus...
Late Rao Bahadur Devineni
Laxmanswami Ashram (Hostel),
Nagpur, A public Trust Registered
under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950,
bearing registration No.E-954, Nagpur,
Through its Trustee
Mr. Anuj S/o Shantilal Badjate
Aged Adult, Occ. Business,
R/o. 3C/2, Shantiniketan,
Dharampeth Extention, Nagpur. RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 299 OF 2018
Shri Sheshrao Ramchandra Mudliar,
Aged Major, Occ. Nil,
::: Uploaded on - 18/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2021 03:23:09 :::
3 24.WP.298-2018 & ORS JUDGMENT.odt
R/o. H.No.555/0+12, at Mauza
Lendra, Near Tuli Hotel, Tuli Imperial,
Central Bazar Road, Nagpur. PETITIONER
...Versus...
Late Rao Bahadur Devineni
Laxmanswami Ashram (Hostel),
Nagpur, A public Trust Registered
under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950,
bearing registration No.E-954, Nagpur,
Through its Trustee
Mr. Anuj S/o Shantilal Badjate
Aged Adult, Occ. Business,
R/o. 3C/2, Shantiniketan,
Dharampeth Extention, Nagpur. RESPONDENT
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. D.P. Bhongade, Advocate for the Petitioner/s in all matters.
Mr. Masood Shareef, Advocate for the Respondent in all matters.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 17th NOVEMBER, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard.
2. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.
3. All the petitions challenge the judgment dated
4 24.WP.298-2018 & ORS JUDGMENT.odt
12.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Small
Causes Court Nagpur and the judgment dated 30.06.2017
passed by the learned District Judge-13, Nagpur in appeal,
which upholds the decree for eviction granted under Section 15
& 16 (1) (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
(hereinafter to be referred as "the M.R.C. Act") to the
plaintiff/respondent.
4. Mr. Bhongade, learned counsel for the petitioner/s
submits, that the Trust was claiming ownership over the suit
property on the basis of the Will dated 19.02.1929 executed by
late Rao Bahadur Devineni Laxmiswami, where under, a trust
was created in respect of the said property. He contends, that it
was necessary for the learned Small Causes Court, Nagpur to
have framed an issue regarding the legality and validity of the
Will so that the title of the Trust could have been determined.
He further contends, that a challenge to the said Will has
already been raised by the legal heirs of the executor by way of
Spl.C.S. No. 698/2015, which was filed on 01.10.2015, on
which count also, the learned Courts below could not have
passed the impugned judgments, as the title of the Trust itself is
5 24.WP.298-2018 & ORS JUDGMENT.odt
in question. He further contends, that on the issue of bonafide
need, there is no pleading nor there is any proof, and therefore,
on this count also, the impugned judgments could not be
sustained. No other argument has been advanced.
5. Mr. Shareef, learned counsel for the respondent
submits, that the relationship of the landlord and tenant stand
admitted between the parties and the learned Small Causes
Court, Nagpur under the provisions of the M.R.C. Act read with
Section 26 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 could
not go into the issue of title, and therefore, the contention
raised in this regard was clearly erroneous. No other argument
was advanced.
6. A perusal of para-8 of the written statement of the
tenant/s which is common in all the petitions, as pointed out by
Mr. Shareef, learned counsel for the respondent, clearly
indicates the admission on part of the tenants regarding the
relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties
hereto. It is categorically admitted by the tenants, that earlier in
point of time, the forefathers of the defendants/tenants were
6 24.WP.298-2018 & ORS JUDGMENT.odt
regularly paying the rent, however in the interim, since there
was no Board of Trustees till the order of appointment by the
Hon'ble Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, it was not possible
for the defendants/tenants to deposit the rent, and now they
were ready to pay the rent. In view of these categoric
admissions on the part of the defendants/tenants, it is no longer
open to them to contend otherwise. Since the relation of
landlord and tenants is duly established, the contention that
there is a challenge raised to the Will dated 19.02.1929 in
Spl.C.S. No. 698/2015, is of no consequence whatsoever,
moreso as the Trust has already been registered with the Office
of the Charity Commissioner, Nagpur on 05.09.1976 bearing
registration No. E-954(Nagpur) and the suit property has been
duly recorded in Schedule-1 as is indicated in the plaint. That
apart, there is also no interim order passed in Spl.C.S. No.
698/2015. It is therefore not open for the defendants/tenants to
now raise a claim regarding the title of the Trust to the suit
property on the basis of the Will for the first time in the Writ
Petitions, as the defendants/tenants are bound by the statement
as made by them in para-8 of the Written Statement.
7 24.WP.298-2018 & ORS JUDGMENT.odt
7. Insofar as, the bonafide need is concerned in
para-11 of the plaint, it has been categorically stated that as per
the aims and object of the plaintiff/Trust, it is has to establish a
Hostel for poor and deserving Hindu students, who are taking
education at Nagpur in High School or University level, and
therefore, the need for purpose of construction of such a hostel,
is pleaded which could not be so done unless the tenants
vacated the same. The need to fulfill the aims and objects of the
Trust cannot be said to be not a bonafide need. This need has
been upheld by both the Courts below and nothing has been
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner/s to
indicate a contrary position thereto.
8. Insofar as, the grant of a decree for payment of the
arrears of rent the defendants/tenants in para-8 itself have
stated that they have not paid the rent, and therefore, no fault
can be found on account of this relief granted by the Courts
below.
9. A similar challenge raised by one of the tenants in
C.R.A. No. 154/2017, has been rejected by this Court by an
8 24.WP.298-2018 & ORS JUDGMENT.odt
order dated 20.02.2018.
10. Considering the above position, I do not see any
reason to interfere in the well reasoned judgments of the Courts
below. The petitions are devoid of any merits and are
accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner/s considering
the dismissal of the petitions seeks 6 months time for vacating
the premises. Mr. Shareef, learned counsel for the respondent is
agreeable to the grant of the same time as has been granted in
C.R.A. No. 154/2017, considering which, the petitioners are
granted 3 months time to vacate the premises.
12. Rule is discharged.
( AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
