Bombay High Court
Shri Hemant S/O Virendra Jain vs Late Rao Bahadur Devineni Laxman ... on 3 April, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 31WP5139.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5139 OF 2017
Hemant Virendra Jain__ Vs. ___Late Rao Bahadur Devineni Laxman Swami Ashram
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.V.Purohit, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Masood Shareef, Advocate for respondent
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 03/04/2023
1] Heard Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Shareef, learned counsel for
the respondent.
2] Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel
for the rival parties.
3] The petition challenges the judgment
dated 12.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional
Judge, Small Causes Court Nagpur and the judgment
dated 17.07.2017 passed by the learned District
Judge-13, Nagpur in appeal, which upholds the
decree for eviction granted under Section 16 (1) (g)
of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
(hereinafter to be referred as "the M.R.C. Act") to
the plaintiff/respondent.
(2) 31WP5139.17
4] Mr. S.V.Purohit, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that all the trustees of the
respondent-trust were necessary to be impleaded as
plaintiffs without which the suit was not
maintainable. In so far as plea of bonafide need is
concerned, he submits that the same is also absent.
5] Mr. Shareef, learned counsel for the
respondent submits, that the relationship of landlord
and tenant stands 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 (pg. 140) of the
written statement of the tenant, as pointed out by
Mr.Shareef, learned counsel for the respondent,
clearly indicates the admission on part of the tenant
regarding the relationship of the landlord and tenant
between the parties hereto. It is categorically
admitted by the tenant, that earlier in point of time,
the forefathers of the defendant/tenant were
regularly paying the rent, however in the interim,
since there was no Board of Trustees till the order of
(3) 31WP5139.17
appointment by the Hon'ble Joint Charity
Commissioner, Nagpur, it was not possible for the
defendant/tenant to deposit the rent, and now he
was ready to pay the rent. In view of these categoric
admissions on the part of the defendant/tenant, it is
no longer open to him to contend otherwise. It is
therefore not open for the defendant/ tenant 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 Petition, as the defendant/tenant is
bound by the statement as made by him in para-8 of
the written statement.
7] In so far as the ground regarding the suit
being infirm on non-joinder of all the trustees is
concerned, it is necessary to note that the suit is for
enforcement of the civil rights of the plaintiff trust
and therefore, there is no necessity to implead all
the trustees as plaintiffs to the suit. The contention
on that count is therefore rejected.
8] 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 has to establish a Hostel for
poor and deserving Hindu students, who are taking
education at Nagpur in High School or University
(4) 31WP5139.17
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 to indicate a contrary position
thereto.
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 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 petition is
devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed
with no order as to costs.
11] The learned counsel for the petitioner
considering the dismissal of the petition 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
(5) 31WP5139.17
petitioner is granted six months time to vacate the
premises.
12] Rule is discharged.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
