IMPORTANT POINTS
In an eviction suit filed on ground of bona fide need, the need should subsist till disposal of the suit.
While determining subsisting bona fide need, events subsequent to filing of the suit should be taken into consideration.
The court should consider comparative hardship of the parties in an eviction suit.

Headnote:(a) Rent laws – Eviction suit – Bona fide need – Appellant purchasing premises measuring 9.7 sq m in 1980 for 10000/- which was yielding rent of 36/- pm – Obviously purchase was not for earning rent but for running own business of betel leaves and nuts – Bona fide need established – However, bona fide need at the time of filing suit must subsist till disposal of the suit – Appellant purchasing another property admeasuring 114.2 sq m during pendency of the suit – Being used to run a flour mill – Cannot be used for running business of betel leaves and nuts – Appellant purchasing yet another property admeasuring 105.7 sq m – Being used for wholesale business of various goods including betel-leaves, cigarettes and fire-work items – Such large premises not fit for retail business of selling betel-nuts, bidi and tobacco etc. – Held, bona fide need of appellant subsisting. (Para 13, 14)
       (1974) 2 SCC 365; (1981) 3 SCC 103 – Referred
       (b) Rent laws – Eviction suit – Comparative hardship – Issue thoroughly analysed and discussed by trial court – Recording a finding in favour of appellant – No reason to interfere. (Para 16)
       Facts of the case:
       The petitioners-plaintiffs purchased the suit property on 06.09.1980. At the time of purchase of the property, the ancestor of the respondent-defendant was occupying the suit property as a tenant. The contractual rent thereof was Rs.36/- per month.
       Having purchased the aforesaid property, the petitioners issued a notice to the respondent, intimating him about the change in title. In spite of receipt of the attornment notice, the respondent did not tender any rent to the petitioners for the period from 1980 to 1982. The petitioners then issued a notice dated 01.05.1982, demanding arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.36/- per month. Despite of the receipt of aforesaid notice, the respondent did not tender any rent to the petitioners. However, in the meantime filed an application for fixation of "standard rent", and took the stand that till the aforesaid application was disposed of, no rent was payable by him to the petitioners.
       The petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit for eviction based on non-payment of rent and their reasonable and bona fide need.
       The trial Court disposed of the Regular Civil Suit accepting the pleas raised by the petitioner.
       The respondent preferred Civil Appeal before the Additional District Judge. The appellate court disposed of the above appeal by reversing the decision rendered by the trial Court.
       The petitioners-landlords approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition which was dismissed.
       Finding of the Court:
       Trial court was right in accepting pleas of the appellant.
       Result:
       Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.

1. The petitioners-plaintiffs purchased the suit property bearing CTS No.2640/C in Barshi town, Barshi Taluka, District Sholapur, measuring 9.7 square meters, on 06.09.1980. At the time of purchase of the property, the ancestor of the respondent-defendant (who has since expired, and is now represented by his legal heirs) was occupying the suit property as a tenant. The contractual rent thereof was Rs.36/- per month. Having purchased the aforesaid property, the petitioners issued a notice to the respondent, intimating him about the change in title. In spite of receipt of the attornment notice, the respondent did not tender any rent to the petitioners for the period from 1980 to 1982. The petitioners then issued a notice dated 01.05.1982, demanding arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.36/- per month. Despite of the receipt of aforesaid notice, the respondent did not tender any rent to the petitioners. In fact, through a communication dated 10.09.1982, the respondent took a stand, that he had filed an application for fixation of "standard rent", and as such, till the aforesaid application was disposed of, no rent was payable by him to the petitioners.

Insofar as the issue of non-payment of rent, and the prayer made by the petitioners in the aforesaid notice for eviction from the premises are concerned, the stand adopted by the respondent was that he was not a defaulter for a period of more than six months, and as such, the notice issued by the petitioners was invalid under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act'). The assertion that the respondent was not a defaulter for more than six months, was based on yet another factual assertion, that the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.180/- by cash to the uncle of the petitioners, whereafter the respondent was not in default for a period of more than six months.

2. Consequent upon the denial by the respondent to tender any rent, the petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No.420 of 1982. In the aforesaid Suit, besides the plea of eviction based on non-payment of rent, the petitioners also claimed the premises for their reasonable and bona fide need.

3. The respondent contested the aforesaid Suit by preferring a written statement wherein he reiterated, that the rent was not payable by him to the petitioners till the fixation of "standard rent". It was also his claim, that an application for determination of "standard rent" was pending. He also undertook to pay all arrears of rent, as and when the aforesaid application was disposed of. It is not a matter of dispute that the respondent had impleaded the petitioners, in the aforesaid application (for fixation of "standard rent") and for all intents and purposes, the petitioners participated in the proceedings pertaining to the fixation of "standard rent". On the issue of eviction based on non-payment of rent, the stand adopted by the respondent was that he had paid a sum of Rs.180/- by cash to the uncle of the petitioners, and on account of the said payment, the notice issued by the petitioners seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent, was defective.

4. The Standard Rent Application No.80/1979 was finally decided on 16.10.1984. The Court fixed the "standard rent" at Rs.36/- per month, which admittedly was the same as the contractual rent payable by the respondent on account of the tenancy of the suit property.

5. The trial Court disposed of Regular Civil Suit No.420 of 1982, on 15.03.1989. The pleas raised by the petitioner were accepted. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial Court, the respondent preferred Civil Appeal No.187 of 1989 before the IV Additional District Judge, Sholapur. The IV Additional District Judge, Sholapur, disposed of the above appeal on 21.04.1993 by reversing the decision rendered by the trial Court. It is, therefore, that the petitioners-landlords approached the High Cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 1018

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAJAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.FARUK ILAHI TAMBOLI & ANR. – APPELLANTSVERSUSB.S.SHANKARRAO KOKATE(D) BY LRS.& ORS. – RESPONDENTSCIVIL APPEAL No.8648 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.22973 of 2010)Decided On : 14-10-2015

Cases Referred (2)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
FARUK ILAHI TAMBOLI & ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
B.S.SHANKARRAO KOKATE(D) BY LRS.& ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL No.8648 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.22973 of 2010)
Decided On : 14-10-2015