Laxmibai Gangaram Bachal and Another vs Yashwant Moreshwar Rajwade and Others

R.M. Lodha, J.—Hears learned Counsel for the parties.

This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree for eviction passed by Extra Assistant Judge, Satara on 18th July-1984 whereby the said court set-aside the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai and decreed Plaintiff''s suit for eviction.

During pendency of the writ petition, civil application has been filed by the legal representatives of original tenant that original Plaintiff landlord has sold property in question by registered sale deed dated 14.4.93 for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/-. The photostat copy of the sale deed has been placed on record.

According to learned Counsel for the Petitioners, upon sale of the property in question, the original Plaintiff''s need has come to an end.

Mr. Abhyankar, learned Counsel for original Plaintiff-landlord does not dispute the correctness of this fact that property in question has been sold by original Plaintiff by way of registered sale deed on 14.4.93. It is now well settled that in a suit for eviction based on reasonable and bonafide necessity, need must exist not only on the date of the suit but also on the date of decree and where further proceedings challenging the said decree is pending then need has to be shown existing on that date.

In M.M. Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma and others, , the Apex Court has ruled that where a person claiming to be landlord seeks to evict the tenant on grounds of bona fide requirement but loses his interest in entirety in demised premises during pendency of appeal he would not still be entitled to maintain or continue the action after cessation, or extinguishment of his interest in the building. The Apex Court further went on to hold that appeal being continuation of suit, the appellate court is competent to take notice of the subsequent event that is cessation or extinguishment of landlord''s interest in the building.

Again, in Hasmat Rai and Another Vs. Raghunath Prasad, , the Apex Court laid down the proposition that where possession is sought for personal requirement it would be correct to say that the requirement pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the action but must subsist till the final decree or order of eviction is made. According to Apex Court, if in the meantime events have cropped-up which would show that landlord''s requirement does not survive then action must fail.

The aforesaid legal position thus being clear, on the face of the fact that the original Plaintiff landlord has transferred the disputed property and his right in the property has been extinguished as a necessary corollary , the bonafide need for which eviction is sought has to be held to have ceased to exist.

The writ petition, therefore, has to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the appellate court viz. Extra Assistant Judge, Satara on 18.7.84 is quashed and set-aside. The Plaintiff''s suit for eviction accordingly stands dismissed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

No costs.