A landlord cannot succeed in a suit for possession under section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Control Act unless the landlord makes out a case in the pleadings and provides sufficient details for the tenant to meet the case.

Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 13(1)(G) - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - TENANT'S RIGHT TO KNOW LANDLORD'S CASE - PLEADINGS - EVIDENCE - SURPRISE - DISMISSAL OF SUIT - LANDLORD'S CASE NOT MADE OUT IN PLEADINGS - EVIDENCE LED ON MATTERS NOT PLEADED - TENANTS PREJUDICED - SUIT DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a landlady, purchased two houses and served a notice to quit on the petitioners, tenants of the premises, claiming possession on the grounds of bona fide personal occupation and demolition as required by the Municipal Corporation. The tenants resisted the suit, denying the landlady's bona fide requirement and the necessity for recovering possession for demolition.
Finding of the Court:

The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate court confirmed the decree, holding that the landlady required the premises reasonably and bona fide for her occupation and that they were also required for demolition as required by the local authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlady required the premises bona fide for her personal occupation? 2. Whether the landlady required the premises for demolition as required by the Municipal Corporation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The landlady's case for bona fide requirement was not made out in the pleadings, and the evidence led on matters not pleaded prejudiced the tenants. 2. The landlady's case for possession on the ground of demolition was no longer relevant as the wall had already been demolished.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, the decrees passed by the courts below were set aside, and the suits filed by the landlady were dismissed.

JUDGMENT - Tulpule R.D. J.-These four petitions raise common questions of law and fact. The respondent is the landlady and owner of Houses Nos. 136 and 137 situate in the Railway Lines area at Solapur. The petitioners are tenants of the said premises along with others. The two houses which adjoin have in all amongst them seven tenants and seven tenements each occupied by a tenant.

2. The respondent purchased House No. 136 in a Court sale on 23rd

April 1969. Later House No. 137 was purchased under a deed in February

1971. After thus purchasing the two houses, the respondent served upon the petitioners a notice to quit. That was on 3rd September 1971. That notice claimed possession on several grounds. It appears that in the mean time on 6th September 1976 the Municipal Corporation at Solapur has served a notice under section 264 of the Corporations Act requiring the landlord respondent to demolish the southern wall as it had become dangerous and was liable to fall. The respondent claimed possession on the ground that she required these premises for her bona fide personal occupation. She stated in the plaint that there are 30 to 32 persons in her family and that for want of accommodation they have to reside at different places at present, that the plaintiff herself is a tenant of another premises and the members of the family of the plaintiff went

to reside in that premises and for that purpose she reasonably and bona fide required the premises in suit. She has stated that notices were issued to five tenants of these premises out of seven. In addition another ground which was made out was that the plaintiff wanted to construct a new building and that she has made arrangements therefore. Unless the tenements are vacated she would not be able to construct a new building thereon.

3. The tenants resisted the suit. They denied that the plaintiff required the premises bona fide for her occupation. They also contended that there was no necessity for recovering possession for the purposes of demolition and compliance with the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation.

4. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. It

appears that during the pendency of these suits one of the tenants entered intoa settlement with the plaintiff and surrendered possession. The plaintiff, there fore, is in. possession at any rate of the rooms in the premises in question. The other four suits came to be decreed.

5. Appeals were carried by the unsuccessful tenants to the District

Court, Solapur, being Civil Appeals No. 251 to 254 of 1975. The appellate

Court by its order dated 10th January 1977 remitted the matter for recording evidence on the question of the dangerous condition of the suit premises and their immediate demolition “under the order of the Solapur Municipal Corporation”, and directed it to return the finding along with the record.

6. After the finding was so returned by the trial Judge, the learned

II Extra Assistant Judge, Solapur, who heard these appeals, held that the

plaintiff landlady required the premises reasonably and bona fide for her

occupation and that they were also required for the purposes of being demolished as required by the local authority. In that view of the matter, he dismissed the appeals and confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by those decisions and decrees the present petitions are filed.

7. In holding that the landlady required the premises bonafide for her occupation and that she also required them reasonably, the learned Extra Assistant Judge observed that the premises in question “seem to have been nominally purchased in the name of respondent-landlady by her husband and husband's three brothers jointly”. He also further pointed out that the husband of the plaintiff who was examined had stated that the four brothers had contributed in equal shares and that they have been residing separately in different houses. The learned Judge observed that they are probably doing so for want of suffic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document