Aditya Pancholi loses rights to Juhu home, faces eviction
The family has been living in a bungalow near ISKCON temple since 1960
By : DC Correspondent
Update: 2015-10-06 13:23 GMT
Mumbai: Aditya Pancholi and his family have lost tenancy rights to the Juhu bungalow which they have rented since 1960. The family has been living in a bungalow near ISKCON temple, paying rent of Rs 150 a month. They have had their claim rejected by three different courts that heard the case in three decades. Pancholi's are likely to approach Supreme Court following the Bombay High Court ruling.
According to reports, The Hate family, who own the bungalow, brought proceedings against the Pancholis in July 1978 for non-payment of eight months rent between February and October 1977. The Pancholis, countered that they didn't receive a notice from the Hate's seeking payment of dues. However, the landlady, Tarabai Hate, claimed it was addressed to Aditya's father Rajan.
The Hates filed suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 in the Small Causes Court in July 1977, seeking the Pancholis' eviction. Several letters of communications between Rajan and the landlord, which stated 'arrears of rent would be remitted by money orders shortly' were submitted. Eleven years later, the actor's family amended their response and added this detail that they never received any notice in October 1977. However, later it turned out that the documents had Rajan's signature.
In the span of three decades, the court observed that Pancholis have not deposited money or paid the landlord by any other means. “At least during the interim period [between 1977 when the notice was sent and 1979, when Rajan responded] Rajan Pancholi had remitted the arrears of rent, something could have been said with regards to the two letters cited by him. Besides, the two letters were not even referred to in the reply filed by Rajan Pancholi (in 1979). All this, makes it clear that attempt on the part of Pancholis to introduce the two letters in the evidence was unsuccessful,“ the judge observed.