PNP 1 RP28401-6.5.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.28401 OF 2010 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1541 OF 2001 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.176 OF 2011 Dilip Prabhakar Sudame ..Petitioner. versus Madhav Ranganath Purandare and others ..Respondents. ..... Ms. A.R.S. Baxi for the Petitioner. Mr. Suhas S. Inamdar for Respondent No.1. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. 6 May 2011. P.C. : 1. The Petition has been filed for reviewing an order passed by this Court on 5 January 2002 in Civil Revision Application 1541 of 2001 and handing over possession of the suit premises being CTS 2338 and 2339 of Municipal No.4913/1 situated at Brahmanpuri at Miraj in the District of Sangli. The Review Petitioner was serving in the Armed forces and the Court is informed that he has retired on 31 August 2007. The Review Petitioner had filed a suit for eviction under Section 13A-1 of the Bombay Rents and Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947. An order of eviction was passed. A Civil Revision Application was filed by the tenant to challenge the decree for eviction before this Court. By a judgment dated 5 January 2002 this Court noted that a certificate as required statutorily by Section 13(1) had been validly issued by the competent authority which would PNP 2 RP28401-6.5.sxw constitute conclusive evidence of the bona fide requirement of the landlord. Hence, this Court found no reason to interfere. However, the Court was informed that the Respondent to the Review Petition was 85 years old and that his wife was 82 years old. Since the Petitioner landlord had a few years of service left in the armed – forces, this Court appointed a Receiver in respect of the premises and directed that during his life time the Respondent tenant and thereafter his wife, if she desired to continue to act as such, shall be appointed as agent of the Receiver without royalty or security subject, however, to the deposit of rent. The Respondent and his wife were permitted to reside in the premises as agents of the Receiver during their respective lifetimes. 2. Now it is an admitted position that the wife of the Respondent died in 2005. The reason for the Review Petition is that the First Respondent and his wife are stated to be not residing in the suit premises since 2004 and the structure had collapsed on 26 July 2005. In paragraph 8 of the Review Petition it has been stated that the First Respondent and his wife had already shifted to some other place prior to 26 July 2005 and a Panchanama was made on 2 August 2005. On 17 August 2005 the Petitioner received a notice from the Corporation for demolishing the dangerous and unsafe structure of the building. The brother of the Petitioner had on 18 August 2005 informed the Corporation that the First Respondent who was residing on the ground floor was out of town for four or five months and hence, the remaining structure could not be demolished. On 6 August 2005 the Petitioner is stated to have written a letter to the Superintendent of Police at Sangli. The Petitioner has also stated PNP 3 RP28401-6.5.sxw that on 31 August 2007 he retired from military service on superannuation. 3. On 11 February 2011 this Court while issuing notice on the review petition, had directed the Second Respondent who has been appointed as Receiver to file a report stating that (i) whether the First Respondent is in possession of the premises and (ii) the condition of the premises. The Receiver has filed his report dated 5 March 2011 stating that the First Respondent is not in possession of the premises. The Receiver has upon inspecting the premises stated that the First Respondent has shifted his household articles and as a matter of fact there are no locks on the first, second and third rooms. All the rooms where the First Respondent resided are found to be open within only an iron latch hanging at the doors. From the report of the Receiver it has emerged that the First Respondent is no longer residing in the premises. The First Respondent has in his affidavit in reply stated that he had filed an application on 10 March 2005 before the Civil Court at Miraj seeking steps against the brother of the Review Petitioner. The case of the First Defendant is that the premises were damaged and that the Petitioner being in the armed forces, the brother of the Petitioner had not carried out any repairs. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the First Respondent state that a contempt petition was filed before this Court. Both the learned counsel state that the Contempt Petition (Contempt Petition 157 of 2008) has been dismissed. 4. The order of this Court dated 5 January 2002 was passed having regard to two circumstances viz. the advanced age of the First PNP 4 RP28401-6.5.sxw Respondent and his wife and secondly, that the Review Petitioner still had service in the Armed forces left. There has been a material change in the circumstances. The Review Petitioner has since retired from the Armed forces. The material on the record also shows that the First Respondent is no longer in occupation of the premises and has shifted elsewhere. In these circumstances, the exercise of the jurisdiction in review is warranted. The Court Receiver is accordingly directed to handover possession of the premises to the Review Petitioner, upon which the Receiver shall stand discharged. It is, however, clarified that as already held by this Court in its judgment dated 5 January 2002, the Court has not found it fit and proper to interfere with the order of eviction passed under Section 13A-1 of the Bombay Rents and Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947, which order has not been disturbed. In view of the disposal of the Review Petition, Civil Application 176 of 2011 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)