A family of six can’t be separated and the tenant can’t be allowed to stay on, said the Bombay high court while reversing the order of joint district judge. The tenant will have to vacate the house.
Justice BR Gavai was hearing an appeal filed by Sudha Barve challenging the June 2002 order of the joint district judge, Thane, which allowed Ranjana Padhye to continue her tenancy despite her admitting that she owns a building in Dombivli.
The joint district judge had said the Barves owned a flat in Badlapur where her son and his family could shift. The Barves have two flats in Shrikripa Building in Gawand Peth in Thane — a two-room-kitchen flat measuring 650 sqft on the ground floor and a one-room kitchen measuring 300 sqft on the first floor.
In 1974, the ground floor flat was rented to Ramesh Padhye for Rs160 a month for residential purpose. After Ramesh’s death, his wife Ranjana continued to stay there and started a crèche in the flat.
Barve terminated the tenancy through a notice on June 22, 1994, saying that they were six-member family — Sudha, her divorced daughter, son Yeshwant, his wife and their two children. Sudha passed away and her daughter, Rekha, contested the suit.
SC Joshi, Barve’s counsel, said Yeshwant’s children are grown up and they need more space. He added that Padhye’s children were earning handsomely and they owned a house in Dombivli.
GR Agrawal, Padhye’s counsel, claimed the Barves owned a house in Badlapur as well where Yeshwant and his family could shift. Joshi countered saying that the Badlapur flat was owned by Dinkar Deshpande, the daughter-in-law’s father and he lives there.
Justice Gavai said: “It was not for the appellate court (joint district judge) to have directed that the plaintiff’s (Barve’s) family be separated and plaintiff and her daughter should stay at Thane and other members be shifted at Badlapur.”
Quoting a Supreme Court order, justice Gavai said: “As observed by the apex court, it is not for the court to dictate to the landlord how he should use the property.”
The case
In 1974, the Barves had given their Thane flat on rent to the Padhyes for residential purpose.
Barve terminated the tenancy through a notice on June 22, 1994, saying that they were six-member family and needed the flat.
But Padhye refused to vacate and the case went to court.
Justice BR Gavai was hearing an appeal filed by Sudha Barve challenging the June 2002 order of the joint district judge, Thane, which allowed Ranjana Padhye to continue her tenancy despite her admitting that she owns a building in Dombivli.
The joint district judge had said the Barves owned a flat in Badlapur where her son and his family could shift. The Barves have two flats in Shrikripa Building in Gawand Peth in Thane — a two-room-kitchen flat measuring 650 sqft on the ground floor and a one-room kitchen measuring 300 sqft on the first floor.
In 1974, the ground floor flat was rented to Ramesh Padhye for Rs160 a month for residential purpose. After Ramesh’s death, his wife Ranjana continued to stay there and started a crèche in the flat.
Barve terminated the tenancy through a notice on June 22, 1994, saying that they were six-member family — Sudha, her divorced daughter, son Yeshwant, his wife and their two children. Sudha passed away and her daughter, Rekha, contested the suit.
SC Joshi, Barve’s counsel, said Yeshwant’s children are grown up and they need more space. He added that Padhye’s children were earning handsomely and they owned a house in Dombivli.
GR Agrawal, Padhye’s counsel, claimed the Barves owned a house in Badlapur as well where Yeshwant and his family could shift. Joshi countered saying that the Badlapur flat was owned by Dinkar Deshpande, the daughter-in-law’s father and he lives there.
Justice Gavai said: “It was not for the appellate court (joint district judge) to have directed that the plaintiff’s (Barve’s) family be separated and plaintiff and her daughter should stay at Thane and other members be shifted at Badlapur.”
Quoting a Supreme Court order, justice Gavai said: “As observed by the apex court, it is not for the court to dictate to the landlord how he should use the property.”
The case
In 1974, the Barves had given their Thane flat on rent to the Padhyes for residential purpose.
Barve terminated the tenancy through a notice on June 22, 1994, saying that they were six-member family and needed the flat.
But Padhye refused to vacate and the case went to court.
Posts
