Shri. Ashok Baburao Tanwani v. Mahalaxmi Mahila Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Mydt, Hupari. Thr. Its Sectary Prakash S. Deshpande

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 218 OF 2023 rrpillai WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3396 OF 2020 Shri Pandurang Vishnu Jadhav ...

Appellant Vs.

Mahalaxmi Mahila Nagari ...

Respondent Sahakari Pathsanstha Mydt Hupari through its Secretary Prakash S.Deshpande WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3363 OF 2020 Shri AshoK Baburao Tanwani ...

Appellant Vs.

Mahalaxmi Mahila Nagari ...

Respondent Sahakari Pathsanstha Mydt Hupari through its Secretary Prakash S.Deshpande WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3361 OF 2020 Sou Kavita Ashok Tanwani ...

Appellant Vs.

Mahalaxmi Mahila Nagari ...

Respondent Sahakari Pathsanstha Mydt Hupari through its Secretary Prakash S.Deshpande Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date:

2024.12.31 11:23:57 +0200 RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI 1/4

WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3435 OF 2020 Ravsaheb M. Mali (Deceased) ...

Appellant through LRS Sonaba M. Mali (Decd through LRs) Mangal R. Mali Vs.

Mahalaxmi Mahila Nagari ...

Respondent Sahakari Pathsanstha Mydt Hupari through its Secretary Prakash S.Deshpande Mr. Manoj A. Patil a/w. Mr. Akash M. Murudkar for the Appellant. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATE :

18th DECEMBER 2024 ORDER :

1.

These second appeals are preferred by the defendants to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees directing the respective defendants to hand over possession of the suit property in the respective suits to the plaintiff society. 2.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the initial tenancy agreement was for a period of five years with a clause in the agreement for extension of time by increasing the rent amount by 20%. He submits that after expiry of the notice period the plaintiff 2/4

called upon the defendants to pay the increased rent amount to the extent of Rs.2500/-. He submits that issuance of such notice amounts to extension of the tenancy period as provided under the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. 3.

Learned counsel for the appellants therefore submits that issuing notice calling upon the defendants to pay the increased rent amounts for extension of the tenancy period by invoking the clause for extension. He therefore submits that both the courts erred in not considering the extension of the tenancy period in view of the notice issued by the plaintiff. He therefore submits that the second appeals would require consideration as the same raises substantial question of law on the ground that there was extension of the tenancy period in view of the notice issued by the plaintiff. 4.

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. A perusal of the reasons recorded by both the courts indicates that after the notice was issued by the plaintiff calling upon to pay the enhanced rent the defendants failed to accept the demand made by the plaintiff and failed to execute fresh agreement as per notice issued by the plaintiff. In view of the refusal by the defendants to accept the demand made by the plaintiff and execute fresh agreement both the courts accepted the plaintiff's contention 3/4

regarding valid termination of the tenancy agreement. Receipt of the notice of termination of tenancy is not in dispute. Both the courts have recorded concurrent findings on the refusal on the part of the defendants to comply with the demand made by the plaintiff. 5.

In view of the non-compliance on the part of the defendants to comply with the demand notice, the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants regarding extension of period of tenancy, has no substance. Both the courts have rightly held that in view of the expiry of the period of tenancy and the notice issued by the plaintiff terminating the tenancy the defendants are not entitled to retain possession of the suit property.

6.

In view of the aforesaid facts concurrently accepted by both the courts, the grounds raised on behalf of the appellants would not require any consideration by this court.

7.

The second appeals do not raise any substantial question of law. Hence, the second appeals are dismissed. 8.

In view of the dismissal of the second appeals, all interim applications are disposed of as infructuous.

[GAURI GODSE, J.] 4/4