Mohd.Ismail vs Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar

7. Feeling aggrieved, a writ petition was moved before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench which, by a final order, remanded the matter back to the Additional Collector for 3 consideration afresh. After remand, the case was again decreed in favour of the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement.

8. Again, a writ petition was filed against the aforesaid order of the Additional Collector, Nagpur before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench. During the pendency of the writ petition, it was brought to the notice of the Court that a similar eviction proceeding was started by the respondent against another tenant Mr. Lal Mohd. which was decreed and possession was taken from Lal Mohd. by the respondent and the respondent, thereafter, started using the same. This fact was in fact brought to the notice of the High Court and the High Court, having found it to be true, again remitted the case back to the Additional Collector, Nagpur, for consideration afresh but after the second remand, again the order of eviction was affirmed in favour of the respondent by the Additional Collector, Nagpur.

9. Against the aforesaid order of the Additional Collector, Nagpur, again a writ petition was moved by the tenant/appellant in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench. Again, by an 4 order dated 16th of January, 2004, the High Court had partially allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 5th of November, 2003 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur and directed the Additional Collector to hear and decide the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties and permitted the respondent to file reply of affidavit filed by the appellant. It was further directed that the appeal shall be decided in the light of the law laid down by Bombay High Court in Janba Daulatrao Borkar Vs. Rajesh Kumar Ramjiwan Agarwal [1975 MHLJ 746].

16. For this purpose, it would be open to the respondent to amend his pleadings of the eviction petition against which, additional objection may also be filed by the tenant/appellant. Thereafter, both parties shall be allowed to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases and to reach a final finding of fact on the question whether the case of bonafide requirement of the respondent was duly proved and such findings along with records and the evidence to be adduced for this purpose shall be transmitted back to the High Court, who will, after considering the evidence on record and the evidence that would be taken after remand along with the findings of the Rent Controller, finally decide whether the requirement of the landlord/respondent was satisfied by the occurrence of subsequent events either during the pendency of the appeal before the Additional Collector, Nagpur or before the High Court.

17. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the Judgment of the High Court and send the case back to it for decision afresh 9 in the light of the observations and directions made hereinabove.

18. The High Court shall direct the Rent Controller, Nagpur to complete the proceedings for taking up the matter, as directed, within three months from the date of supply of a copy of its order and the High Court, after receiving the records along with evidence and documents from the Rent Controller, Nagpur, and the findings made thereon, shall decide the same finally within three months from the date of receipt of the records from the Rent Controller, Nagpur, positively, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

19. The impugned Judgment of the High Court is thus set aside and the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.